JUl 


SUPPLEMENTARY  REPORT 


ON    THE 


DISPOSAL  OF  NEW  YORK'S  SEWAGE 


CRITICAL  REPORT  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  SEWER  PLAN 

COMMISSION  ON  THE  PLANS  OF  MAIN  DRAINAGE 

AND  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL  PROPOSED  FOR  NEW 

YORK  BY  THE  METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION  AND  REPLY  THERETO 


METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE   COMMISSION 

OF   NEW  YORK 


JUNE  30,  1914 


GEORGE  A.  SOPER 
JAMES  H.  FUERTES 
H.  de  B.  PARSONS 
CHARLES  SOOYSMITH 
LINSLY  R.  WILLIAMS 


Commissioners 


SUPPLEMENTARY  REPORT 


ON    THE 


DISPOSAL  OF  NEW  YORK'S  SEWAGE 


CRITICAL  REPORT  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  SEWER  PLAN 

COMMISSION  ON  THE  PLANS  OF  MAIN  DRAINAGE 

AND  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL  PROPOSED  FOR  NEW 

YORK  BY  THE  METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION  AND  REPLY  THERETO 


METROPOLITAN   SEWERAGE   COMMISSION 

OF   NEW  YORK 


GEORGE  A.  SOPER 
JAMES  H.  FUERTES 
H.  de  B.  PARSONS 
CHARLES  SOOYSMITH 
JUNE  30,  1914  LINSLY  R.  WILLIAMS 


Commissioners 


4"f 


CRITICAL    REPORT    OF    THE    NEW   YORK   SEWER    PLAN   COMMISSION 

ON    THE    PLANS    OF    MAIN    DRAINAGE    AND    SEWAGE 

DISPOSAL   PROPOSED    FOR   NEW   YORK   BY   THE 

METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 

AND  REPLY  THERETO 

HONORABLE  JOHN   PURROY  MITCHEL, 

Mayor,  City  of  New  York. 
SIR: 

From  1910  to  1914  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  was  engaged  in  making  plans  of  main 
drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for  New  York  City.*  This  work  was  based  on  the  investigations  which  the 
Commission  had  made  from  its  creation  in  1906f  to  the  publication  of  its  formal  report  of  April,  1910. 

To  facilitate  the  planning,  the  city  was  separated  into  four  great  divisions,  according  to  the  principal 
drainage  areas  which  were  tributary  to  the  chief  divisions  of  the  harbor.  The  works  for  each  division  were 
prepared  with  the  object  of  preserving  the  harbor  in  that  degree  of  cleanness  which  the  Commission  and 
its  various  expert  advisers  considered  necessary  and  sufficient  in  view  of  the  digestive  capacity  of  the  waters 
and  the  uses  to  which  the  harbor  was  putt 

When  a  plan  for  any  considerable  part  of  the  city  approached  completion,  the  engineers  in  charge  of 
the  local  sewerage  systems  which  would  be  tributary  to  the  new  works  were  invited  to  the  Commission's 
office  in  order  to  discuss  the  plans  and  give  the  Commission  the  benefit  of  their  criticism.  In  some  cases 
the  plans  were  materially  altered  in  order  to  meet  the  views  of  the  Sewer  Bureaus.  The  plans  were  then 
printed  and  copies  of  the  reports  containing  them  were  distributed  in  order  to  give  early  information  con- 
cerning the  projects  which  the  Commission  expected  to  recommend  in  its  final  report. 

At  various  times  the  Commission  employed  consulting  experts  to  criticize  the  various  projects  which 
the  Commission  had  prepared  and  it  was  partly  on  the  advice  so  received  that  some  of  the  more  important 
projects  were  decided  upon.  The  critical  reports  of  the  experts  were  published  and  distributed.! 

At  the  beginning  of  the  last  year  of  its  existence,  the  Commission  undertook  to  obtain  for  the  work 
such  benefit  as  could  be  rendered  by  the  consulting  engineers  of  the  several  boroughs.  The  efforts  made  to 
secure  co-operation  consisted,  first,  of  a  conference  with  the  consulting  engineers.  On  this  occasion  the  con- 
sulting engineers  expressed  their  willingness  to  co-operate,  but  stated  that  they  could  not  do  so  unless  au- 
thorized by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment.  With  the  object  of  obtaining  the  necessary  permis- 
sion, a  second  conference  was  held  at  the  request  of  the  Commission.  The  invitation  was  extended  by  the 
Borough  President  of  Manhattan  and  the  meeting  took  place  at  his  office.  All  the  Borough  Presidents 
were  requested  to  attend,  but  only  the  President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  was  there  in  person.  The 
consulting  engineers  and  the  members  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission  were  present.  At  this  meeting  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  explained  its  work,  renewed  its  request  for  co-operation  and  suggested  that  steps 
be  taken  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  to  give  the  consulting  engineers  the  needed  permission  to  assist  the 
Commission  in  completing  its  plans. 

•Preliminary  Reports  I  to  VII,  inclusive,  Sept.  1911-Feb.  1913. 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  Report  of  April  30,  1914. 
tMetropoljtan  Sewerage  Commissjon's  Report  of  April  30,  1910. 
^Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  Report  of  August  1,  1912. 
§Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  Report  of  August  1,  1912. 


493655 


•-  ••:•:• 
:•::  :•  :.-:•.•    • 


4 


At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  following  the  conference  held  in  the  office 
of  the  Borough  President  of  Manhattan,  a  resolution  was  introduced,  appointing  the  consulting  engineers 
and  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  a  Commission  to  make  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal 
plans  for  the  city.  This  was  on  June  26,  1913. 

The  appointment  of  the  city  engineers  to  form  a  new  Commission  to  undertake  work  which  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  had  nearly  completed  was  not  understood  by  the  latter,  and  a  letter  was  sent  to 
the  Borough  President  of  Manhattan  on  July  21st  to  inquire  if  a  mistake  had  not  inadvertently  been  made. 
This  letter  recited  the  reasons  which  had  led  the  Metropolitan  Commission  to  invite  the  help  of  the  con- 
sulting engineers  and  described  the  incidents  which  preceded  the  formation  of  the  new  Commission.  A 
reply  was  received  to  the  effect  that  there  had  been  no  mistake,  the  object  of  creating  the  new  Commission 
being  to  provide  for  the  co-operation  desired  by  creating  a  semi-official  body  representing  specifically  the 
different  boroughs.  The  letter  stated :  "I  recognize  that  with  the  filing  of  the  final  report  of  your  Com- 
mission will  come  the  next,  and  very  important,  stage  of  the  city's  sewerage  plan,  that  of  construction." 

A  letter  was  sent  by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  to  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor- 
tionment on  March  18,  1914,  inviting  attention  to  the  plans  of  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  made 
by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  and  stating  that  in  a  report  to  the  Mayor,  dated  January  7,  1914,  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  had  recommended  that  a  new  Commission  be  at  once  created,  or  an  existing  Com- 
mission designated,  to  proceed  with  the  detailed  study  of  plans  which  should  form  part  of  the  construction 
of  the  necessary  works.  The  Board  of  Estimate  was  informed  that  the  members  of  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission had  placed  their  resignations  in  the  hands  of  the  Mayor  to  take  effect  as  soon  as  their  final  report 
could  be  completed,  which,  it  was  expected,  would  not  be  later  than  April  30,  1914.*  There  was  appended 
to  this  letter  a  condensed  statement  of  the  Commission's  investigations,  findings  and  conclusions,  plans  for 
main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works  and  scheme  of  administration  for  construction  and  maintenance. 

At  a  special  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  held  on  April  14,  1914,  the  work  of  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission,  and  particularly  its  plans  for  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal,  were  criticized 
by  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Estimate,  the  Consulting  Engineer  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan 
and  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Sewer  Bureau  of  Brooklyn,  representing  the  Sewer  Plan  Commission,  which 
had  been  created  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  on  June  26,  1913.  It  was  stated  that  sufficient  time  had  not 
been  afforded  in  which  to  prepare  an  adequate  criticism  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  work.  The 
Board  of  Estimate  requested  that  the  criticisms  of  the  city  engineers  be  submitted  in  writing  at  a  meeting 
to  be  held  later. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  held  about  one  month  later,  that  is,  on  May  18th,  a  printed 
report  of  the  city  engineers  criticizing  the  work  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  was  presented  and 
the  conclusions  which  were  appended  to  it  were  discussed.  The  meeting  was  then  adjourned  until  the 
essential  points  of  disagreement  contained  in  the  report  could  be  defined  and  submitted  for  discussion  to 
the  Board  of  Estimate. 

Two  meetings  between  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  and  the  city  engineers  were  held  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  arrangement. 

The  first  meeting,  held  on  June  1,  showed  that  the  main  points  of  disagreement  were  upon  the  three 
following  questions : 

*The  final  report,  with  the  matured  plans  for  works  and  much  additional  information,  was  delivered  by  the  printer 
June  12,  1914. 


1.  Is  it  desirable  to  include  a  specific  reference  to  oxygen  in  the  standard  of  cleanness  for  the  waters 
of  the  harbor? 

2.  Are  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  plans  for  the   relief  of  the  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem 
suitable  for  adoption  ? 

3.  To  what  extent  is  it  practicable  and  desirable  to  construct  settling  basins  in  the  built-up  sec- 
tions of  the  city  ? 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  meeting  it  seemed  possible  to  eliminate  the  oxygen  question  as  a  point  of 
difference.  The  Metropolitan  Commission  thereupon  suggested  the  possibility  that  further  conferences 
might  result  in  the  elimination  of  all  the  disagreements  and  proposed  that  the  Commission  and  the  city 
engineers  should  meet  again  if  a  substantially  complete  agreement  seemed  possible. 

A  second  meeting  was  held  at  the  office  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission  on  June  11  for  the  purpose 
of  discussing  the  question  of  settling  basins  in  the  built-up  parts  of  the  city  and  the  measures  of  relief 
suitable  for  the  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem.  At  this  second  meeting  it  appeared  that  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  and  the  city  engineers  could  make  little  additional  headway  toward  an  agreement  without 
going  into  many  details  for  which  there  was  not  time  before  the  first  of  July,  when  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  expected  to  go  out  of  existence. 

As  a  result  of  the  conferences,  it  was  decided  to  submit  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  a  statement  of  the 
three  most  important  points  of  difference  and  a  brief  memorandum  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of,  and  against, 
each  point.  These  were  not  all  the  points  of  difference  which  existed  between  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission and  the  city  engineers.  In  the  critical  report  upon  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  plans,  sub- 
mitted by  the  city  engineers  on  May  15,  1914,  there  were  over  100  misstatements  or  points  of  disagreement. 

The  three  points  of  disagreement  which  it  seemed  desirable  to  bring  before  the  Board  of  Estimate, 
with  the  essential  arguments  relating  to  them,  here  follow: 

THE  OXYGEN  SPECIFICATION  IN  THE  STANDARD  OF  CLEANNESS 

The  Metropolitan  Commission,  in  its  report  of  August,  1912,  recommended  a  standard  of  cleanness 
for  the  waters  of  New  York  harbor.  The  terms  of  this  standard  were  based  largely  on  the  Commission's 
studies  of  the  condition  of  the  water  and  the  need  of  improving  that  condition.  In  arriving  at  its  opinion, 
the  Commission  obtained  the  advice  of  eight  experts  especially  qualified  to  consult  in  regard  to  the  degree 
of  permissible  pollution,  as  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  public  health  and  decency.  The  standard 
which  was  formulated  and  the  experts'  reports  were  printed  in  August,  1912,  and  are  contained  in  the 
second  of  the  three  large  volumes  of  reports  which  the  Metropolitan  Commission  has  issued. 

The  standard,  as  originally  drafted,  included  the  minimum  amount  of  oxygen  which  was,  in  the  Com- 
mission's opinion,  permissible  for  the  harbor  waters.  Further  studies  carried  on  during  a  period  of  two 
years  have  convinced  the  Metropolitan  Commission  that  it  is  not  necessary  or  desirable  to  state  a  specific 
limit  to  the  oxygen  which  may  be  present.  The  Commission  is  convinced  that  if  the  other  requirements  of 
the  standard  are  complied  with,  there  will  be  sufficient  oxygen  in  the  water.  In  fact  the  function  of  the 
oxygen  is  largely  to  permit  the  other  specifications  of  the  standard  to  be  realized.  The  omission  of  the 
oxygen  specification  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinions  of  the  last  two  consulting  experts  emptyyed  by 
the  Commission  and  has  their  endorsement.* 


*  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commisaion's  Report  of  April  30,  1914,  p.  612  et  seq. 


6 

The  city  engineers  advise  the  retention  of  a  specification  with  respect  to  oxygen  and  would  have  it 
vary  in  different  parts  of  the  harbor  and  be  lower  than  any  minimum  heretofore  proposed,  but  it  has  been 
impossible  in  the  conferences  which  have  been  held  between  the  Metropolitan  Commission  and  the  city  en- 
gineers to  obtain  a  statement  of  the  amount  of  oxygen  which  the  city  engineers  consider  necessary  and 
sufficient. 

It  seems  impracticable  to  the  Metropolitan  Commission  to  maintain  different  standards  in  the  different 
parts  of  the  harbor  for  the  reason  that  the  waters  flow  to  a  considerable  extent  from  one  to  another  and 
all  vary  considerably  at  different  seasons  of  year. 

SETTLING  BASINS  IN  THE  BUILT-UP  SECTIONS  OF  THE  CITY 

During  a  large  part  of  its  work  of  planning  a  system  of  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for 
New  York,  attention  was  given  to  the  extent  to  which  it  would  be  permissible  to  employ  settling  basins 
for  the  partial  purification  of  the  sewage.  As  a  result,  works  employing  settling  basins  have  been  rec- 
ommended by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  for  the  following  places:  Wards  Island,  Tallmans  Island, 
Clason  Point,  Barren  Island,  Jo  Cos  Marsh  and  the  ocean  island.  The  Commission  is  opposed  to  the  use 
of  settling  basins  in  built-up  sections. 

In  considering  the  permissibility  of  using  settling  basins,  the  following  investigations  were  made : 

1.  Studies  for  basins  in  various  situations,  including  the  following:      (a)  Along  the  waterfront  be- 
neath the  marginal  streets;     (b)  in  the  parks;     (c)  in  side  streets;     (d)  on  property  to  be  acquired 
for  the  purpose. 

2.  The  possibility  of  building  settling  basins  (a)  wholly  beneath  the  street  surfaces  was  inquired 
into,  as  was  the  practicability  of  constructing  them  so  as  to  operate  (b)  under  and  (c)  without  the  in- 
fluence of  the  tidal  movements  in  the  harbor. 

3.  Various  types  of  settling  basins  were  considered,  including   (a)    Imhoff  tanks;      (b)  Dortmund 
tanks;     (c)  shallow  depth  settling  basins. 

4.  Study  was  given  to  structural  questions  relating  to  settling  basins   and   especially   to    (a)    the 
cost  of  construction  and  (b)  interference  with  other  structures  beneath  the  streets. 

5.  The  impracticability  of  expanding  a  system  of  main  drainage  employing  a  large  number  of  locally 
placed  settling  basins  into  a  more  effective  system  in  case  of  necessity  was  carefully  noted. 

6.  The  probability  that  offensive  odors  would  be  produced  by  settling  basins  was  discussed  and  the 
likelihood  that  popular  objection  would  be  aroused  to  works  employing  settling  basins  in  the  built-up 
sections  was  considered. 

7.  The  inefficiency  of  various  types  of  settling  basin  was  investigated  and  consideration  was  given  to 
(a)  the  gases  produced,  (b)  sludge  formed  and  (c)  the  final  disposition  of  the  sludge. 

8.  In  order  to  obtain  the  most  recent  and  reliable  information  possible  concerning  the  use  of  settling 
basins,  (a)  visits  were  made  by  a  member  of  the  Commission  to  about  twenty  of  the  most  important  sew- 
age installations  in  Europe  and  America;  (b)  the  inventor  of  the  latest  marked  improvement  in  the  form 
of  settling  basins  was  called  in  consultation  and  made  a  report  to  the  Metropolitan  Commission;  and  (c) 
the  opinion  of  the  engineers  of  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  where  settling  basins  had  been  made  the  subject 
of  special  study,  was  obtained. 

As  a  result  of  all  this  investigation,  the  Metropolitan  Commission  arrived  at  the  opinion  that  it  would 
be  undesirable  to  construct  settling  basins  in  the  built-up  sections  of  the  city  and  that  such  structures  were 


neither  necessary  from  the  standpoint  of  the  disposal  of  the  sewage  nor  defensible  upon  sanitary  grounds. 
The  conferences  failed  to  bring  from  the  city  engineers  any  definite  plans  for  the  use  of  settling  basins 
in  the  built-up  sections  of  the  city. 

PROTECTION  OF  THE  EAST  RIVER  AND  HARLEM  RIVER 

A  large  part  of  the  argument  advanced  by  the  city  engineers  against  the  Commission's  projects  for 
the  relief  of  the  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem  was  based  upon  the  opinion  of  the  city  engineers  that  settling 
basins  could  and  should  be  constructed  in  the  built-up  sections  of  the  city.  Consequently  some  part  of  the 
argument  just  stated  relating  to  settling  basins  applies  here. 

Objection  was  made  by  the  city  engineers  against  the  Commission's  recommendation  to  build  intercep- 
tors along  the  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  shores,  to  carry  the  sewage  to  screening  plants  at  a  point  in  the 
Lower  East  river,  these  plants  later  to  be  connected  by  siphon,  and  the  200  million  gallons  of  sewage 
which  would  be  tributary  to  them  to  be  carried  by  a  tunnel  to  an  island  at  sea. 

Objection  was  made  to  practically  every  feature  of  this  part  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  project. 
Xo  carefully  worked  out  alternative  was  proposed.  It  did  not  appear  that  the  city  engineers  had  prepared  a 
definite  project  which  might  serve  as  an  alternative  to  the  project  recommended  by  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission. The  nearest  approach  to  definiteness  was  in  the  suggestion  for  an  interceptor  along  the  Brooklyn 
waterfront  to  extend  to  an  island  to  be  constructed  south  of  Governors  Island.  At  this  island  settling  basins 
would  be  located  and  the  sewage  would  be  discharged  into  the  neighboring  waters.  It  was  not  claimed  that 
the  line  to  be  followed  by  this  interceptor  or  its  length  had  been  determined. 

The  principal  objections  which  the  Metropolitan  Commission  finds  to  the  scheme  are  (a)  lack  of  pro- 
tection to  the  Lower  East  river;  to  take  200  million  gallons  from  the  Brooklyn  shore  and  discharge  it  at 
Governors  Island  after  settlement,  allowing  the  Manhattan  sewage  to  discharge  either  in  raw  condition  or 
by  screening  or  sedimentation  would  not  be  equivalent  to  removing  100  million  gallons  of  sewage  from 
the  Manhattan  shore  and  the  same  quantity  from  the  Brooklyn  shore  and  sending  it  to  sea,  as  proposed  by 
the  Commission,  (b)  The  project  would  not  afford  a  final  solution  of  the  problem  of  disposing  of  the 
sewage  of  that  part  of  Manhattan  which  is  tributary  to  the  Lower  East  river,  (c)  To  extend  the  works 
so  as  to  afford  a  greater  protection  to  the  water  would  be  prohibitive  from  the  standpoint  of  cost, 
(d)  Assuming  the  efficiency  of  the  settling  basins  as  30  per  cent.,  there  would  be  discharged  about  70  per 
cent,  of  the  polluting  materials  which  would  be  discharged  into  the  water  if  no  works  were  built,  (e) 
Further  objection  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  point  of  discharge  would  be  within  about  two  miles  of  the  Passaic 
Valley  sewer  outfall  to  which  New  York  has  objected  for  years  and  concerning  which  there  is  a  law  suit 
now  pending  in  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  The  Passaic  Valley  sewer  is  expected  to  discharge  304 
million  gallons  of  sewage  per  twenty-four  hours.  To  this  quantity  would  be  added  the  effluent  from  the 
new  island,  amounting  to  200  million  gallons  per  day.  These  two  great  loads  of  sewage  would  prove  to 
be  an  excessive  burden,  (f )  Another  objection  to  the  construction  of  a  sewage  island  in  the  inner  harbor 
would  be  odor.  It  is  not  possible,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission,  to  settle  and  discharge 
200  million  gallons  of  sewage  at  a  point  immediately  south  of  Governors  Island  without  producing  odors 
which  would  be  seriously  objectionable  to  the  heavy  water  traffic  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  (g)  The  cost 
of  collecting  200  million  gallons  of  sewage  from  the  Brooklyn  waterfront  and  disposing  of  it  on  an  island 
to  be  built  south  of "  Governors  Island  has  been  estimated  by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  at  about 


8 

$10,000,000  and  the  annual  charges  at  about  $780,000.  If  it  became  necessary  in  course  of  time  to  afford 
greater  protection  to  the  harbor  than  these  works  made  possible,  the  next  step  presumably  would  be  the 
construction  of  a  tunnel  to  the  ocean.  The  entire  ocean  outlet  project,  as  proposed  by  the  city  engineers, 
would  then  be  over  $4,500,000  more  expensive  than  the  ocean  island  project  of  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
rnission. 

For  the  relief  of  the  Harlem,  the  city  engineers  proposed  a  scheme  whereby  as  much  as  possible  of  the 
sewage  of  Upper  Manhattan  be  diverted  from  the  East  river  and  Harlem  to  the  Hudson  river  and  the 
sewage  of  the  Lower  Bronx  partly  into  the  Hudson  and  partly  into  the  Upper  East  river  at  Hunts  Point 
or  Rikers  Island.  No  scheme  for  this  territory  has  been  described  in  detail  and  it  was  not  brought  out  in 
the  conferences  that  any  careful  planning  and  estimating  had  been  done  by  the  city  engineers  in  connection 
with  it.  The  Commission's  project  of  concentrating  the  sewage  from  the  same  territory  at  Wards  Island 
for  treatment  and  discharge  was  criticized  in  practically  every  respect. 

The  project  to  carry  to  the  Hudson  that  part  of  the  sewage  of  Upper  Manhattan,  which  is  naturally 
tributary  to  the  Harlem  river  and  Hell  Gate,  requires  the  construction  of  a  number  of  tunnels  and  these, 
according  to  the  city  engineers'  report,  would  discharge,  about  300  million  gallons  per  day  into  the  Hudson 
within  a  distance  of  about  three  miles.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  serious  popular  objection  would 
be  aroused  in  regard  to  this  scheme.  The  Hudson  from  72nd  Street  to  Spuyten  Duyvil  is  practically  all 
park  with  high  shores  from  which  such  relatively  small  discharges  of  sewage  as  now  take  place  are  too 
plainly  visible.  The  water  is  polluted  and  must  eventually  receive  at  least  100  million  gallons  of  sewage 
per  day  chiefly  from  that  part  of  Manhattan  which  lies  to  the  south  of  the  proposed  tunnels.  To  multiply 
the  pollution  of  the  Hudson  river  at  its  most  picturesque  and  attractive  point  would  be  to  invite  serious 
public  criticism.  The  discharges  would  have  to  take  place  comparatively  close  to  the  Manhattan  shore,  inas- 
much as  the  most  rapid  currents  exist  there.-  Otherwise  the  outlets  would  have  to  be  carried  to  an  exces- 
sive depth. 

As  to  cost,  the  report  of  the  city  engineers  gives  no  figures  and  it  does  not  appear  that  any  definite 
layout  for  works  has  been  considered.  It  is  proposed  to  build,  in  connection  with  the  diversion  of  the 
sewage  to  the  Hudson,  a  new  system  of  collecting  sewers,  the  present  sewers  being  eliminated  and  in  their 
place  a  system  of  storm  water  drains  being  laid  close  beneath  the  surface  of  the  streets  and  a  system  of 
sewers  for  household  sewage  constructed  deep  underground. 

It  seems  unnecessary  for  the  Commission  to  enter  into  a  detailed  discussion  of  this  project.  It  may 
be  of  service,  however,  to  point  out  that  the  reconstruction  of  the  sewerage  system  of  Upper  Manhattan  in  the 
manner  proposed  would  be  costly  and  the  interference  with  the  commercial  and  other  activities  of  the  pop- 
ulation resulting  from  the  tearing  up  of  streets  and  alterations  to  the  plumbing  of  the  houses  would  be 
large.  According  to  estimates  furnished  to  the  Commission  by  several  plumbers  familiar  with  such  work, 
to  reconstruct  the  present  plumbing  of  a  house  on  a  25-foot  lot  in  Manhattan,  north  of  110th  Street,  with 
the  proposed  system  of  sewers  would  cost  a  little  more  than  $400. 

The  cost  of  diverting  all  the  sewage  of  Upper  Manhattan  and  a  part  of  the  Bronx  to  the  Hudson  river 
and  of  carrying  to  Hunts  Point  for  disposal  the  sewage  of  that  part  of  the  Bronx  to  the  east  of  Hell  Gate, 
in  accordance  with  the  plan  proposed  by  the  city  engineers,  would  involve  more  expense  than  the  Commis- 
sion's project  for  the  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  the  same  territory  and  would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mission, arouse  serious  public  protest  against  the  pollution  of  the  Hudson  river. 


9 

No  part  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  work  has  received  more  repeated,  thorough  and  impartial 
investigation  by  eminent  consulting  experts  than  the  works  proposed  for  the  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem. 
In  their  present  form  they  have  the  unqualified  endorsement  of  John  D.  Watson  and  Gilbert  J.  Fowler 
of  England  and  Rudolph  Hering  and  George  W.  Fuller  of  New  York. 

Respectfully, 

METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION, 

GEOHGE  A.   SOPEB,  President, 
JAMES  H.  FUEHTES,  Secretary, 
H.  DE  B.   PABSONS, 
CHARLES  SOOYSMITH, 
LINSLT  R.  WILLIAMS. 


THE  REPORT  IN  FULL  AND  SPECIFIC  REPLIES  THERETO 


CRITICAL  REPOET 

May  15,  1914. 

Honorable  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment, 
City  of  New  York: 

Gentlemen — The  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment  and  the  Consulting 
Engineers  of  the  Boroughs,  constituting  the  New 
York  Sewer  Plan  Commission,  have  been  asked  to 
criticize  the  plan  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission for  protecting  the  harbor  of  New  York  from 
pollution.  In  the  short  time  available1  it  has  not 
been  possible  to  go  into  such  detail  as  would  be  de- 
sirable, but  we  simply  have  described  briefly  the 
scheme  as  we  understand  it  in  its  latest  form,  stated 
in  what  respects  it  is  concurred  in  by  us  and  presented 
a  frank  statement  of  criticisms  and  suggestions  for 
alternative  schemes. 

The  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  as  ,at 
present  constituted,  is  composed  of  five  members 
and  has  been  employed  continuously  for  a  period  of 
six  years  at  an  expense  to  the  City  of  about  $250,000 
in  an  endeavor  to  find  the  most  suitable  solution  of 
this  problem.  Previous  to  its  appointment,  the  New 
York  Bay  Pollution  Commission  and  an  earlier  Met- 
ropolitan Sewerage  Commission  had  together  been 
engaged  upon  the  same  problem  for  five  years.  It 
is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  in  this  period  of  ap- 
proximately eleven  years  every  question  relating  to 
this  problem  has  been  carefully  considered  and  that 
all  investigations  which  have  a  bearing  on  it  have 
been  made.  It  is  understood  that  in  addition  to  the 
voluminous  reports  which  have  been  published,  a 
mass  of  data  has  been  collected  which  has  neither 
been  published  nor  otherwise  made  accessible.2 

A  formidable  array  of  scientific  counsel  has  been 
employed.  Each  is  an  expert  in  his  own  specialty 
and  his  opinion  upon  subjects  within  the  range  of 
his  particular  investigations  is  undoubtedly  worthy 
of  respect.  A  number  of  these  experts  are  profes- 
sors of  chemistry  and  bacteriology  and  one  is  a 
doctor  of  medicine,  but  only  three  or  four  are  sani- 
tary engineers  and  experts  who  are  fully  equipped 
to  advise  upon  the  whole  problem  in  all  its  scientific 
features.8  Two  of  the  latter,  whose  advice  is  of 
especial  value,  were  employed  only  a  few  months 
ago. 


REPLIES 


1  About  five  weeks  were  consumed  in  writing  this 
criticism.  The  plans  of  the  Metropolitan  Commis- 
sion were  practically  all  published  and  distributed 
between  September,  1911,  and  February,  1913.  The 
Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Estimate,  who  is  the 
Chairman  of  the  Sewer  Plan  Commission,  had  made 
a  long  report  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  on  the  Metro- 
politan Commission's  work  in  March,  1913.  See 
City  Record,  April  18,  1913. 

The  Commission's  work  had  been  given  wide  cir- 
culation through  many  public  addresses  and  technical 
papers. 


2  All  the  information  in  the  possession  of  the  Met- 
ropolitan Commission  has  always  been  accessible  to 
the  engineers  of  the  city.  See  Foreword  to  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission's  Report  of  April  30, 
1910,  page  5. 


3  The  experts  were  employed  to  answer  specific 
questions  upon  which  the  Metropolitan  Commission's 
work  was  to  be  based.* 

*For  reports  of  Experts,  see  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission's Report  of  August  1,  1912,  pages  80  to  168. 


CEITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


11 


Plan  Proposed  by  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion. 

In  some  of  its  features  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission's plan  agrees  with  what  sanitary  engineers 
employed  by  the  City  and  others  familiar  with  the 
situation  here  have,  for  a  long  time,  recognized  as 
the  most  feasible  methods  of  treatment,  in  others 
it  does  not  commend  itself  to  them. 

Information  regarding  the  plan  as  now  proposed 
by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  has  been  obtained 
from  statements  made  at  the  conference  before  the 
Board  of  Estimate  on  April  14,  1914;  the  letter 
from  Dr.  G.  A.  Soper,  President,  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission,  to  Chief  Engineer  Lewis  of  the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  dated  April 
16,  1914;  and  the  letter  from  the  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission  to  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate,  dated  March  18,  1914.  Copies  of  the  two 
letters  are  appended.  The  plan,  as  interpreted  from 
this  fragmentary  information,  including  its  most 
recent  modifications,  is  briefly  outlined  in  the  follow- 
ing table  and  shown  on  the  attached  sketch.4 


4  Full,  not  fragmentary,  information  was  available. 
In  addition  to  the  sources  of  information  stated,  there 
should  be  mentioned  the  following  official  reports  of 
the  Metropolitan  Commission :  "Sewerage  and  Sew- 
age Disposal  in  the  Metropolitan  District  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,"  April  30,  1910,  550  pages; 
"Present  Sanitary  Condition  of  New  York  Harbor 
and  the  Degree  of  Cleanness  Necessary  and  Sufficient 
for  the  Water,"  August,  1912,  457  pages;  Prelim- 
inary Reports  I  to  XVII,  inclusive,  issued  between 
September,  1911,  and  March,  1914,  about  575  pages. 
Also  the  following  conferences  attended  by  the  Con- 
sulting Engineers  of  the  Boroughs  and  the  members 
of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  and  at 
which  the  subject  for  discussion  was  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission's  work:  June  3,  1913,  at  the 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  office;  June  19, 
1913,  at  the  office  of  Borough  President  of  Man- 
hattan. The  only  material  alteration  made  in  the 
Commission's  plans  since  the  publication  of  Prelim- 
inary Report  VI,  dealing  with  the  Lower  East  river 
project  has  been  to  separate  the  Lower  East  river 
project  into  two  parts,  the  first  to  be  constructed 
immediately  and  the  second  to  be  deferred  until  its 
necessity  becomes  apparent.  See  Letter  from  the 
President  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission 
to  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and 
Apportionment,  dated  April  16,  1914,  Appendix  I 
of  the  City  Engineers'  Critical  Report. 


12 


Program  of  Construction  and  Estimate  of  Cost  of  the  Main  Drainage  Works 


No.  Structure. 


First  Stage. 

A  Manhattan-East  River  interceptor,  Broad  st.  to  26th  st.,  pump  station,  submerged  outfall  and  screening 
plant  at  Corlears  Hook.  Brooklyn-East  River  interceptor,  Huron  to  Classon  ave.,  pump  station 
and  screening  plant  at  S.  5th  st 

B       Lower  East  River,  isolated  screening  plants 

C  Wards  Island  works,  first  installation.  Manhattan  interceptor,  106th  st.  to  148th  st.,  Bronx,  Brook 
ave.-149th  st.,  pump  station  and  treatment  plant  (to  last  until  1920) 


D       Northwestern  Queens  works. 

fcM 

Total,  first  stage 


Second  Stage. 

A-l  Ocean  Island-East  River  siphon,  pumping  station,  etc ... 

A-2  Western  Jamaica  Bay  interceptors 

B  More  isolated  screening  plants,  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn. 

C-l  Tallmans  Island  works,  first  installation 

2  Classon  Point  works,  first  installation 

3  Jo  Cos  Marsh  works,  first  installation 

4  Richmond  works 

D  Wards  Island  works,  complete  installation 


Total,  second  stage 

Total  to  about  1925 

Third  Stage. 


A-l    Tallman's  Island,  complete  installation. 

2    Jo  Cos  Marsh,  complete  installation — 

B       Northeastern  Queens 


Grand  total . 


Compiled  from:  (W)  Statements  at  hearing  before  Board  of  Estimate,  April  14,  1914;  (X)  Letter  Dr 
of  the  Board  of  Estimate,  March  18,  1914;  (Z)  Preliminary  reports  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 


13 


for  New  York  City  Proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission. 


When  to  Be  Built.  Cost.  Cost  Obtained  From. 


At  once  (W)  (X)  ...........     $4,095,000  00  (X). 

At  once  (X)  ................         710,00000  (X). 

At  same  time  or  immediately 

thereafter.    Completed  be- 

fore 1920  (W)  (X)  ........       5,000,000  00  (Y). 

Same  time  as  Wards  Island 

(W)  .....................          352,00000  (Z). 


$10,157,000  00 


To  be  completed  in  1925  (X)  $14,000,000  00  17,500,000  (X)  minus  3,500,000  assumed  cost  of  interceptors. 

To  be  completed  in  1925  (X)  4,000,000  00  (X). 

To  be  completed  in  1925  (X)  4,200,000  00  (X). 

Begin  before  1925  (X)  .......  1,285,000  00  (Y). 

Begin  before  1925  (X)  .......  708,000  00  (Z). 

Begin  before  1925  (X)  .......  1,100,000  00  (Y). 

Begin  before  1925  (X)  .......  841,000  00  (Z). 

About  1925  (see  First  Stage 

C)  ......................  4,814,000  00  9,814,000  (Z)  minus  5,000,000  (First  Stage  C). 


$30,948,000  00 
$41,105,000  00 


676,000  00    (Z)  minus  Second  Stage  C-l. 
1,183,000  00    (Z)  minus  Second  Stage  C-3. 
563,000  00  (Z). 


$43,527,000  00 


Soper  to  Chief  Engineer  Lewis,  April  16,  1914;  (Y)  Letter  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  to  Members 
mission. 


14 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


Apparently  there  are  some  omissions  in  the  pro- 
gramme as  outlined  in  the  correspondence.  There 
is  no  mention  of  the  Northwestern  and  Northeastern 
Queens  Works,  nor  is  it  stated  when  the  remainder 
of  the  Wards  Island  Works  will  be  installed.  The 
cost  of  some  of  the  other  works  shown  on  the  sketch 
is  not  given. 

It  has  been  assumed  that  the  Wards  Island  Works 
will  be  completed  in  the  second  stage  (the  first 
stage  being  required  to  be  completed  before  1920), 
that  the  cost  of  works,  where  not  otherwise  given, 
would  be  as  stated  in  the  various  preliminary  reports 
of  the  Metropolitan  Commission,  and  that  some 
works  shown  on  the  sketch  and  estimated  in  the  pre- 
liminary reports,  but  for  which  no  date  for  construc- 
tion has  been  given,  would  be  deferred  until  a  third 
stage. 

It  is  not  clear  whether  the  estimates  include  the 
cost  of  land.5  If  not,  about  $5,000,000  should  be 
added  to  the  estimate.  At  the  hearing  on  April  14, 
1914,  Dr.  Soper  stated  that  the  total  cost  of  all  of  the 
works  planned  was  estimated  at  $51,459,000.  There 
is  also  the  possible  additional  tunnel  from  Wards 
Island  to  Ocean  Island,  which  would  probably  cost 
not  less  than  $25,000,000  in  addition  to  the  above 
figures.6 

In  order  to  describe  more  fully  the  scheme  of  the 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  it  is  here  divided 
into  its  five  most  important  features: 

1 — Standard  of  Cleanness: 

A  standard  of  cleanness  for  the  waters  of  the  har- 
bor is  to  be  maintained  by  means  of  proposed  works 
or  by  such  other  means  as  are  deemed  necessary  by 
a  proposed  State  and  Federal  Commission.  This 
standard  is  as  follows:7 

(1)  Garbage,  offal  or  solid  matter  recognizable 
as  of  sewage  origin  shall  not  be  visible  in  any  of 
the  harbor  waters. 

(2)  Marked  discoloration  or  turbidity,  efferves- 
cence, oily  sleek,  odor  or  deposits  due  to  sewage  or 
trade  wastes  shall  not  occur  except  perhaps  in 
the  immediate  vicinity  of  sewer  outfalls  and  then 
only  to  such  an  extent  and  in  such  places  as  may 
be  permitted  by  the  authority  having  jurisdiction 
over  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  harbor. 

(3)  The  discharge  of  sewage  shall  not  materi- 
ally contribute  to  the  formation  of  deposits  injuri- 
ous to  navigation. 

(4)  (This    section    has    been    recently    aban- 
doned.)8    Except  in   the   immediate   vicinity   of 
docks  and  piers  and  sewer  outfalls  the  dissolved 


5  The  cost  of  land  is  included  in  the  Lower  East 
River,  Hudson  and  Bay  Division.  In  the  others  the 
larger  plants  (Wards  Island  and  Barren  Island  and 
Jo  Co.'s  Marsh)  would  be  on  land  now  owned  by  the 
City  or  State.  Probably  $500,000  would  cover  the 
cost  of  land  for  the  other  plants. 

G  The  construction  of  an  additional  tunnel,  if  re- 
quired at  all,  would  be  deferred  to  such  a  remote 
period  as  to  make  its  inclusion  in  the  present  esti- 
mates unwarranted.  See  Metropolitan  Sewerage 
Commission's  Preliminary  Report  VI,  page  39.  See 
also  reply  to  criticism  10. 


7  The  standard  was  proposed  not  as  a  rigid  code  of 
laws,  but  rather  as  a  statement  of  conditions  which, 
with  suitable  modifications  and  interpretations  in  the 
various  parts  of  the  harbor,  it  will  be  desirable  to 
keep  in  mind  in  designing  the  main  drainage  works. 
See  City  Engineers'  Critical  Report,  "Matters  of 
Substantial  Agreement,"  paragraph  6 ;  also  following 
replies  to  criticism  8,  23,  26,  30,  34,  35,  36,  51  and 
121. 


8  The  pronouncement  as  to  oxygen  has  been  omitted 
as  unnecessary  in  the  presence  of  the  other  specifi- 
cations. See  City  Engineers'  Critical  Report,  "Mat- 
ters of  Substantial  Agreement,"  paragraph  6.  Also 
see  reply  to  criticism  7  and  replies  23,  26,  30,  34, 
35,  36,  51  and  121. 


CRITICAL  EEPOET 


EEPLIES 


15 


oxygen  in  the  water  shall  not  fall  below  3.0  cu. 
C.  M.  per  litre  with  60  per  cent,  of  sea  water  and 
40  per  cent,  of  land  water  and  at  the  extreme 
summer  temperature  of  80  degrees  F.  3.0  cu.  C.  M. 
of  0  per  litre  corresponds  to  58  per  cent,  of  satura- 
tion. Near  docks  and  piers  there  should  always 
be  sufficient  oxygen  in  the  water  to  prevent  nuis- 
ance from  odors. 

(5)  The  quality  of  the  water  at  points  suitable 
for  bathing  and  oyster  culture  should  conform  sub- 
stantially as  to  bacterial  purity  to  a  drinking  water 
standard. 


2 — Intercepting  Sewers: 

Intercepting  sewers,  to  collect  sewage  for  treatment 
and  discharge  are  proposed  along  the  south  shore 
of  Long  Island,  parts  of  both  shores  of  the  upper 
East  River,  the  Harlem  River  and  the  lower  East 
River. 

3 — Treatment  Works: 

Sedimentation  plants  of  large  capacity  are  pro- 
posed at  the  upper  end  of  Jamaica  Bay,  Tallmans 
Island  and  Wards  Island.  The  latter  plant  is  to 
be  constructed  very  soon  and  will  treat  in  1940  302,- 
000,000  gallons  of  sewage  per  day  from  The  Bronx 
and  Northern  Manhattan.  The  sewage  collected  by 
the  interceptors  along  the  lower  East  River  will  be 
discharged  at  two  points,  after  the  removal  by  screen- 
ing of  only  71/j  per  cent,  of  the  organic  matter.  In 
1925  it  is  proposed  that  this  sewage,  amounting  to 
about  200,000,000  gallons  per  day,  will  be  pumped 
at  a  large  and  continuous  expense  to  an  island  in 
the  ocean,  for  treatment  by  sedimentation. 

About  thirty-five9  isolated  screening  plants  are 
proposed  at  various  points  along  the  westerly  shores 
of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn,  along  the  northerly 
shore  of  Richmond  and  at  a  few  points  in  the  East 
River. 

The  sludge  from  both  screening  and  sedimentation 
plants  will  have  to  be  removed  by  a  fleet  of  sludge 
boats  properly  equipped  and  manned. 

4 — Ocean  Island: 

It  is  proposed  to  build  an  island  initially  about 
twenty  acres  in  extent  in  the  ocean  three  and  one-half 
miles  off  Coney  Island  shore  in  the  direction  of  Sandy 
Hook,  upon  which  will  be  located  a  sedimentation 
plant,  berths  for  boats,  quarters  for  men,  etc.  It  is 
also  proposed  to  build  a  tunnel,  about  14  miles  in 
length,  extending  from  the  interceptors  in  the  lowest 
East  River  and  passing  under  the  City  of  Brooklyn 


9  There  would  be  30  local  screening  plants  in  the 
projects  recommended.  One  in  the  Richmond  Divi- 
sion; See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  Pre- 
liminary Report  V,  page  17.  Two  in  the  Upper 
East  River  and  Harlem  Division,  at  Winthrop  Avenue 
and  Cryders  Point,  Borough  of  Queens;  see  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission's  Preliminary  Report 
IV,  pages  5  and  6.  Twenty-seven  in  the  Lower  East 
River,  Hudson  and  Bay  Division;  twenty-five  at 
various  points  on  the  Hudson  and  Lower  East  rivers 
and  the  Upper  bay,  two  at  Corlears  Hook  and  South 
5th  Street. 


16 


CRITICAL   REPORT 


REPLIES 


and  the  ocean,  to  this  island.  A  large  pumping  sta- 
tion will  be  necessary  to  force  the  sewage  through 
this  tunnel. 

The  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission has  stated  that  when  the  volume  of  sewage 
effluent  from  the  Wards  Island  plant  shall  have  be- 
come too  great  for  discharge  into  the  East  River,  it 
was  a  part  of  their  plan  to  construct  a  tunnel  from 
Wards  Island  to  the  Wallabout,  increase  the  pumping 
facilities  at  the  latter  point,  and  construct  a  second 
14-mile  tunnel  for  the  delivery  of  this  effluent  to  a 
greatly  enlarged  ocean  island.10 

5 — A  dminis  tration  : 

An  independent  board  or  Commission,  similar  to 
the  Board  of  Water  Supply,  is  proposed  to  undertake 
the  immediate  construction  of  these  works  and  their 
operation  after  they  are  built.11  It  is  suggested  that 
suitable  legislation  be  secured  empowering  such  a 
board  to  undertake  the  work. 

A  supervisory  State  and  Federal  Commission  is  also 
proposed  with  powers  to  compel  the  taking  of  such 
measures  and  the  building  of  such  works  as  may  seem 
necessary  to  said  Commission  for  the  maintenance 
of  certain  standards  of  cleanness  in  the  surrounding 
waters.  This  Commission  would  have  authority  over 
seven  hundred  square  miles  of  territory  in  the  States 
of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  including  the  City  of 
New  York  and  about  eighty  other  municipalities.12 

MATTERS  OF  SUBSTANTIAL  AGREEMENT. 

Considered  in  the  most  general  manner,  but  not 
with  respect  to  the  details18  of  design,  the  New  York 
Sewer  Plan  Commission  agrees  with  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission  upon  the  following  proposi- 
tions : 

1.  "That  the  digestive  capacity  of  the  harbor  for 
sewage  should  be  utilized  as  far  as  is  consistent  with 
due  regard  to  public  health  and  welfare." 

2.  "That  the  system  of  main  drainage  and  dis- 
posal should  be  built  progressively." 

3.  That  the  following  schemes  for  the  disposal 
of  the  sewage  of  the  City,  which  have  been  consid- 
ered and  worked  out  in  detail14  by  the  Metropolitan 
Commission,  are  not  worth  serious  consideration : 

(a)  Collection  at  one  central  location  for  treat- 
ment at  an  estimated  cost  of  $141,000,000. 

(b)  Treatment  upon  land  at  a  cost  of  $153,000,- 
000. 

(c)  Disposal  at  sea  at  one  point  at  a  cost  of  $140,- 
000,000. 


10  The  construction   of  an  additional   tunnel,   if 
required  at  all,  would  be  deferred  to  such  a  remote 
period  as  to  make  its  inclusion  in  the  present  esti- 
mates   unwarranted.      See    Metropolitan    Sewerage 
Commission's  Preliminary  Report  VI,  page  39.    See 
also  reply  to  criticism  6. 

11  The  recommendation  is  that  a  new  Commission 
be  created  or  an  existing  Commission  designated  to 
begin    the    gradual    construction    of    the    necessary 
works  and  their  supervision  or  operation.     See  Met- 
ropolitan Sewerage  Commission's  Preliminary  Report 
XVI,  March,  1914,  p.  9.     Also  see  replies  to  criti- 
cism 12,  13,  15,  19,  22,  98,  112,  113,  114  and  124. 
A  supervisory  Commission  was  only  recommended  in 
case  the   two  states,   New  York  and   New  Jersey, 
should  unite  to  protect  the  harbor. 

12  The  object  of  the  central  commission  would  be 
to  co-ordinate  the  sewerage  and  disposal  works  of  the 
eighty  or  more  municipalities  in  the  metropolitan 
district  and,  by  causing  each  city  and  each  State  to 
do  its  share  toward  the  reasonable  protection  of  the 
harbor,  put  a  stop  to  the  unsanitary  practices  now 
existing.    See  reply  to  criticism  11.    Also  see  replies 
13,  15,  19,  22,  98,  112,  113,  114  and  124. 

13  The  Metropolitan  Commission  has  not  proposed 
any  details  of  design.     It  has  laid  out  a  system  of 
main   drainage   and   sewage   disposal   upon   general 
lines.    It  is  intended  to  leave  all  detailed  designs  to 
the  constructing  authority.    See  Metropolitan  Sewer- 
age Commission's  Preliminary  Report  XVI,  page  11. 
Also  condensed  statement  of  the  work  of  the  Metro- 
politan  Sewerage   Commission,   Appendix   II,   City 
Engineers'  Critical  Report.    See  replies  to  criticism 
11,  12,  15,  19,  22,  112,  113,  114  and  124. 

14  No  projects  have  been  worked  out  in  final  detail 
by  the  Metropolitan  Commission,  but  only  with  suffi- 
cient care  to  prove  their  practicability.    See  reply  to 
criticism  13. 


CRITICAL  RBPOET 


REPLIES 


17 


(d)  The  establishment  of  filtration  plants  within 
the  built-up  portions  of  the  City. 

These  projects,  with  some  others  of  a  similar  char- 
acter, which  have  been  under  consideration,  are  all 
so  apparently  impracticable  to  those  whpse  knowl- 
edge of  such  matters  and  whose  judgment  is  entitled 
to  any  respect  that  neither  time  nor  money  should  be 
wasted  upon  them. 

4.  That  the  sewage  which  enters  the  North  River 
from  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx 
can  be  properly  treated  by  screening.     This  agree- 
ment does  not  apply  to  the  type  nor  to  the  location 
of  screens  recommended.15     The  Sewer  Plan  Com- 
mission does  not  endorse  the  statement  of  the  Met- 
ropolitan  Commission  that  sedimentation  or  septic 
tank  treatment16  is  impracticable  for  certain  parts 
of  this  waterfront.     Results  obtained  by  such  treat- 
ment are  far  superior  to  those  obtained  by  screening.17 

The  choice  between  screening  or  sedimentation 
plants,  their  location,  and  the  question  as  to  whether 
they  should  be  preferred  to  some  other  method  of 
treatment  in  each  case,  is  largely  one  of  economy  and 
of  distributing  the  load  of  pollution  over  the  parts 
of  the  harbor  best  able  to  bear  the  burden,  taking 
into  account  local  conditions  and  physical  difficulties 
or  advantages. 

5.  That  any  rational  scheme  for  sewage  disposal 
in  certain  parts  of  the  harbor  obviously  must  include 
intercepting  sewers,  but  their  proper  location  and 
design  depend  upon  the  local  conditions. 

Those  proposed  for  the  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn 
shores  of  the  lower  East  River  may  or  may  not  be 
necessary ;  in  any  case  their  design,  location  and  point 
of  discharge  are  disapproved.  The  same  applies  to 
the  intercepting  sewers  proposed  for  the  Manhattan 
and  Bronx  shores  of  the  Harlem  River.18 

There  is  no  criticism  of  some  of  the  intercepting 
sewers  proposed  for  the  northern  shore  of  the  Bor- 
ough of  Queens,  but  they  have  been  largely  forestalled 
by  different  plans.  Intercepting  sewers  designed  to 
accomplish  the  same  purpose  as  those  proposed  by 
the  Metropolitan  Commission  were  advocated  by 
Black  and  Phelps,  and  have  been  partially  worked 
out  in  detail  by  the  Borough  authorities  and  partially 
constructed.  In  one  case  at  least,  large  contracts  are 
under  way  for  portions  of  these  sewers  which  make 
material  modifications  necessary  in  the  proposed 
plans.19  This  is  one  of  the  places  where  better  results 
may  be  obtained  by  substituting  sedimentation  for 
screening  as  a  method  of  treatment.20 

The  scheme  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission for  the  Jamaica  Bay  district  has,  in  its 
general  features,  been  under  consideration  by  the 
Borough  authorities  for  years.  It  has  always  been 


15  No  specific  types  or  exact  locations  have  been 
proposed   by   the   Metropolitan   Commission.      Such 
details  belong  to  the  Commission  to  be  charged  with 
construction.    See  replies  to  criticism  13  and  14,  also 
replies  89  and  98. 

16  The  Metropolitan   Commission  has  not  stated 
that  septic  tank  treatment  is  impracticable  for  the 
Manhattan  waterfront,  although  it  holds  that  opin- 
ion.   It  has  stated  that  sedimentation  tanks  are  not 
suitable   in   closely  built-up   sections.     See   Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission's  Preliminary  Report 
XIII,  page  10. 

1T  Septic  tanks  would  not  be  suitable  on  account 
of  the  large  space  required,  the  putrid  character  of 
the  effluent,  probability  of  odor,  danger  of  explosion, 
interference  with  other  underground  structures  and 
the  strong  public  protests  which  would  be  made 
against  them.  See  also  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission's Preliminary  Report  XIII,  page  4.  See 
replies  to  criticism  16,  58,  76,  82,  83,  84,  85  and  123. 
The  Metropolitan  Commission  never  stated  that 
screening  was  equivalent  to  septic  tank  treatment  or 
to  sedimentation. 

18  If  the  interceptors  may  be  necessary,  why  are 
they  here  disapproved? 


19  These  modifications  can  easily  be  made,  and  it  is 
expected  that  the  constructing  authority  will  make 
all  necessary  modifications.     In  the  future  all  con- 
tracts should  be  made  to  conform  to  the  main  drain- 
age plans  of  the  city  or  there  will  be  unnecessary 
expense.    See  also  replies  to  criticism  11,  12,  13,  15, 
22,  98,  112,  113,  114  and  124. . 

20  Sedimentation  is  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  for  this  territory  except  for  a  small  part 
of  the  sewage.    See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion's Preliminary  Report  IV,  page  5, 


18 


CRITICAL  EEPORT 


REPLIES 


recognized  that  an  intercepting  sewer  along  the 
shores,  which  would  collect  the  domestic  sewage  from 
the  territory  south  of  the  dividing  ridge  of  the 
island,  and  deliver  it  at  some  point  near  the  outlet 
of  the  Bay  for  treatment,  will  eventually  be  neces- 
sary. For  the  last  fourteen  years  Barren  Island  has 
been  looked  upon  as  the  most  suitable  location  for  a 
sewage  disposal  plant,  and  drainage  plans  now  before 
the  Board  of  Estimate  for  adoption  contemplate  this. 
The  plans  proposed  by  Messrs.  Phelps  and  Black  con- 
tained arrangements  of  a  similar  nature. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  plans  of  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  contemplates  the  construction  of  inter- 
cepting sewers  about  the  shores  of  this  Bay,  and  the 
discharge  of  the  effluent  into  Rockaway  Inlet,  the 
treatment  of  sewage  on  Barren  Island,  the  treatment 
of  sewage  at  some  point  near  the  head  of  the  Bay, 
and  the  discharge  of  the  effluent  into  the  Bay  itself, 
are  concerned,  no  novel  idea  is  presented  and  there 
is  substantial  agreement.21  The  plan  presented  by 
the  Metropolitan  Commission  is  by  no  means  thor- 
oughly worked  out  and  can  be  materially  improved 
and  reduced  in  cost.22. 

6.  That  the  Metropolitan  Commission  has  acted 
wisely  in  abandoning,  even  at  this  late  date,  the  dis- 
solved oxygen  standard  of  purity  for  the  harbor  of 
58  per  cent,  of  saturation.23  An  attempt  to  maintain 
it  would  have  involved  the  City  in  an  unnecessary 
expense  and  would  never  have  been  successful.24 

CRITICISM  OF  THE  METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE 
COMMISSION'S  SCHEME. 

The  general  plan  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission  is  criticised  because  it  calls 
for  an  unnecessary  expenditure  which  may  ultimately 
amount  to  forty  millions  of  dollars.25 

The  plan  apparently  was  prepared  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  needlessly  high  standard  of  clean- 
ness originally  proposed  and  advocated  by  the  Metro- 
politan Commission  until  recently  when  one  of  its 
most  important  elements  was  abandoned.  Notwith- 
standing the  change  in  the  standard  of  cleanness 
no  material  modification  has  been  made  in  the  plan, 
except,  perhaps,  the  possible  postponement  of  the 
construction  of  the  ocean  island,  outlet  and  tunnel.26 

The  whole  plan  has  been  built,  to  a  very  great 
extent,  around  the  idea  of  removing  a  large  quantity 
of  sewage  from  the  inner  harbor  and  discharging  it 
into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  of  concentrating  a  large 
portion  of  the  remainder  for  treatment  and  discharge 
at  a  central  point  where  the  harbor  is  least  able  to 


21  Novelty  is  not  claimed.    See  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission's  Preliminary  Report  III. 

22  Many  details  remain  to  be  studied  before  con- 
tract plans  are  made,  and  it  is  expected  that  the  esti- 
mates of  cost  can  be  reduced  by  the  constructing  au- 
thority.    See  replies  to  criticism  11,  12,  13,  15,  19, 
29,  112,  113,  114  and  124. 

23  The  dissolved  oxygen  specification  in  the  stand- 
ard has  not  been  abandoned.     It  has  been  omitted 
as  unnecessary  in  view  of  the  other  specifications.  See 
replies  to  criticism  7  and  8;  also  following  replies 
26,  30,  34,  35,  36,  51  and  121. 

24  This  list  is  not  complete.     The  city  engineers 
in  other  parts  of  its  report  agree  with  the  Metro- 
politan Commission  in  other  important  principles. 
See  also  replies  to  criticism  27,  28,  32,  46,  47,  49,  50, 
51,  53,  94,  95,  98,  99,  111,  115,  116,  120  and  122. 

25  The  plans  call  for  a  much  larger  ultimate  ex- 
penditure than  that  stated,  all  of  which  the  Metro- 
politan Commission  considers  will  be  necessary.     It 
is  about  $3.33  per  capita. 

26  The  omission  of  the  oxygen  specification  has  not 
affected  the  severity  of  the  standard  nor  caused  any 
modification  in  the  plans.     See  replies  to  criticism 
7,  8  and  23;  also  replies  30,  34,  35,  36,  51  and  121. 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


19 


care  for  it.27  In  the  opinion  of  the  Sewer  Plan 
Commission,  sufficient  protection  from  unsatisfactory 
conditions  can  be  secured  with  much  greater  economy 
hy  arranging  the  main  drainage  works  so  that  the 
quantities  of  sewage  effluent  produced  will  be  distrib- 
uted throughout  the  harbor  for  digestion,  each  part 
to  receive  as  much  sewage  as  it  can  reasonably  be 
expected  to  assimilate  and  that  all  interceptors  as 
far  as  practicable  will  transport  it  progressively 
toward  either  the  Atlantic  Ocean  or  Long  Island 
Sound.28 

Standard  of  Cleanness: 

The  standard  of  cleanness  proposed  by  the  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission  in  1912  was  divided 
into  five  parts  and  has  been  previously  stated. 

The  Sewer  Plan  Commission  concurs  in  the  rec- 
ommendations of  part  1.  Part  2  is  indefinite  and 
probably  unwise  in  that  it  leaves  the  determination 
of  the  conditions  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  sewer 
outfalls  to  individual  judgment.29  Part  3  is  also 
concurred  in.  Part  4  is  not  concurred  in  and  it  is 
understood  that  this  part  has  now  been  abandoned 
by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission.30  Part 
5  sets  too  high  a  standard  for  bathing  beaches  and 
waters  used  for  oyster  culture,  so  high  that  it  might 
result  within  a  few  years  in  the  abolition  of  many 
of  the  important  bathing  beaches  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  City.31  Bathing  can  be  permitted  for  some 
time  to  come  in  certain  portions  of  the  upper  East 
River  and  Long  Island  Sound,  as  well  as  on  the 
beaches  of  the  Lower  Bay.  The  bathing  beaches 
in  the  upper  East  River  will  probably  ultimately  have 
to  be  abandoned,  but  with  reasonable  precautions 
they  may  be  used  for  a  considerable  time  in  the 
future.  Those  on  the  south  shore  of  Long  Island 
should  by  all  means  be  preserved.32  The  cultivation 
of  oysters  and  their  preparation  for  market  is  a 
matter  which  should  be  given  further  study  before 
such  exact  requirements  are  fixed. 

The  high  standard  proposed  for  the  dissolved  oxy- 
gen content  of  the  water  has  led  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission  to  recommend  some  very  ex- 
pensive works,  which  would  not  have  been  necessary 
had  it  been  assumed  at  the  time  the  standard  was 
adopted  that  the  waters  of  the  harbor  could  be  used 
to  a  greater  extent  in  furnishing  oxygen  for  the  di- 
gestion of  sewage.33  That  this  high  standard  is  un- 
necessary is  evident.  It  is  understood  that  to  main- 
tain the  waters  in  a  suitable  condition  for  major  fish 
life  would  not  have  a  value  commensurate  with  its 
cost  and  it  is  generally  admitted  that  such  a  policy 
would  be  inadvisable.34  For  like  reasons  it  is  appar- 
ent that  the  waters  of  the  inner  harbor  cannot  be 


27  This  is  the  very  opposite  of  the  fact,  as  stated 
by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  and  as  shown  in  the 
City  Engineers'  Report,  "Matters  of  Substantial 
Agreement,"  sections  1  and  3,  page  7,  and  set  forth 
with  much  clearness  in  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage 
Commission's  Preliminary  Report  VI,  dated  Febru- 
ary, 1913,  page  31.  See  reply  to  criticism  24. 


28  This  is  the  plan  of  the  Metropolitan  Commis- 
sion. To  discharge  the  Harlem  sewage  into  the  Hud- 
son would  be  to  transport  the  sewage  away  from  the 
ocean  in  opposition  to  the  principle  followed  by 
the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  and  here 
enunciated  by  the  city  engineers.  See  reply  24. 


29  It  is  intended  to  leave  something  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  authority  having  permanent  jurisdiction 
over  this  question.    See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission's Preliminary  Report  XVI,  page  11.     Also 
Appendix  II,  part  IV,  of  City  Engineers'  Critical 
Report.     See  replies  15  and  98. 

30  The  specification  as  to  oxygen  in  the  Metropol- 
itan Commission's  standard  of  cleanness  has  not  been 
abandoned.     The  statement  has  been  omitted  as  it 
is  covered  by  the  other  provisions  of  the  standard. 
See  replies  to  criticism  7,  8,  23  and  26 ;  also  replies 

34,  35,  36,  51  and  121. 

31  Not  if  interpreted  intelligently  and  with  due 
regard  to  local  circumstances.      The  Metropolitan 
Commission's  opinion  is  that  clean  water  is  indis- 
pensable for  bathing. 

32  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission.   See  reply  to  criticism  24. 

33  The  proposed  works  are  not  expensive  when 
compared  with  the  main  drainage  and  sewage  dis- 
posal works  of  other  large  cities.    The  Metropolitan 
Commission  has  planned  the  sewage  distribution  so 
as  to  utilize  the  oxygen  in  the  harbor  waters  to  the 
best  advantage. 

34  The  Metropolitan  Commission  never  considered 
it  necessary  to  provide  for  major  fish  life.    A  fairly 
high  oxygen  figure  is  necessary  in  the  main  channels 
in  order  that  there  shall  be  sufficient  oxygen  among 
the  docks  and  piers  and  in  other  quiet  places.     See 
replies  to  criticism  7,  8,  23,  26  and  30;  also  replies 

35,  36,  51  and  121. 


20 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


maintained  in  such  purity  as  to  safely  permit  their 
use  for  bathing  or  shell  fish  culture.  While  it  is  not 
economically  feasible  to  maintain  the  waters  to 
any  particular  degree  of  bacteriological  purity, 
it  is  desirable  that  they  be  kept  free  from  local 
nuisances  which  may  offend  the  sense  of  sight 
or  smell.  If  this  is  to  be  done  they  must  never  be 
entirely  robbed  of  their  dissolved  oxygen,  and  while 
the  high  standard  recommended  by  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission  in  1912  was  economically  un- 
wise, the  other  extreme,  recently  proposed  of  disre- 
garding the  quantity  of  dissolved  oxygen  in  the  water, 
is  equally  objectionable.35 

All  the  numerous  expert  authorities  on  the  subject 
who  were  consulted  and  whose  reports  were  published 
in  1912  agree  that  dissolved  oxygen  is  one  of  the 
best  single  measures  of  pollution  of  the  harbor  waters, 
and  the  great  preponderance  of  expert  opinion  among 
sanitarians  everywhere  supports  their  conclusion.  The 
Metropolitan  Commission  in  completely  abandoning 
this  part  of  its  standard,  in  an  attempt  to  place  itself 
in  accord  with  the  recommendations  of  experts  re- 
cently employed,  has  now  placed  itself  in  absolute 
disagreement  with  the  large  number  of  experts  pre- 
viously consulted,  and  whose  recommendations  they 
have  published.38 

In  support  of  the  contention  that  a  much  lower 
dissolved  oxygen  content  is  permissible,  the  following 
is  cited : 

New  York  Harbor  at  the  present  time  is  receiving 
the  sewage  from  all  the  Greater  City  with  practically 
no  treatment  at  all,  and  without  regard  to  proper 
distribution  and  diffusion.  As  a  result  the  oxygen 
content  in  the  East  River  and  the  Harlem  River  has 
fallen  to  a  very  low  percentage  during  the  past  sum- 
mer. Notwithstanding  this  fact  there  has  been  no 
nuisance  in  the  main  channels.  Whatever  nuisance 
has  occurred  is  directly  traceable  to  local  conditions 
along  the  shore  front,  or  in  the  smaller  bays  or  inlets 
and  to  the  concentration  of  large  quantities  of  un- 
treated sewage  at  the  principal  sewer  outfalls.  The 
fact  that  the  waters  in  the  main  channels  of  the  Har- 
bor have  not  become  unduly  polluted  under  present 
conditions  is  one  of  the  best  demonstrations  available 
of  the  capacity  of  the  harbor  to  digest  enormous 
quantities  of  sewage,  showing,  as  it  does,  that  the 
oxygen  may  safely  be  depleted  to  a  very  low  percent- 
age during  the  summer  months. 

The  River  Thames  receives  the  sewage  from  the 
City  of  London  after  it  has  been  treated  by  chemical 
precipitation,  and  while  the  flow  in  that  stream  is 
very  much  less  than  that  through  the  various  portions 
of  New  York  Harbor,  it  has  been  maintained  in  a 
satisfactory  condition  with  an  oxygen  content  in  the 


35  The  Metropolitan  Commission  does  not  propose 
to  disregard  the  quantity  of  dissolved  oxygen  in  the 
water.  Its  position  is  that  if  the  other  provisions  of 
the  standard  of  cleanliness  are  complied  with,  there 
will  be  sufficient  oxygen  present.  See  replies  to  criti- 
cism 7,  8,  23,  26,  30  and  34;  also  replies  36,  51 
and  121. 


36  The  Metropolitan  Commission  has  not  aban- 
doned any  part  of  its  standard  of  cleanness,  nor  has 
it  placed  itself  in  disagreement  with  all  its  earlier 
experts.  Of  the  eight  experts  consulted  in  regard  to 
dissolved  oxygen,  only  three  suggested  that  a  definite 
limit  be  placed.  See  reports  of  the  experts  pub- 
lished in  full  with  a  digest  of  their  opinions  in  tho 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's  Report  of 
August,  1912,  Part  II,  Chapter  II,  page  71.  Also 
see  replies  to  criticism  7,  S,  23,  26,  30,  34  and  35 ; 
also  replies  51  and  121. 


CEITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


21 


summer  months  from  20  per  cent,  to  30  per  cent.37 
This  river,  before  treatment  was  begun,  had  reached 
a  state  where  practically  all  of  the  oxygen  was  ex- 
hausted and  it  had  become  a  positive  nuisance.  The 
experience  in  London  covers  a  period  of  about  25 
years  and  is  one  of  the  best  examples  of  the  great 
improvement  which  can  be  obtained  through  the 
elimination  of  only  a  part  of  the  organic  solids. 

The  City  of  Hamburg,  containing  about  1,000,000 
inhabitants,  discharges  its  sewage  into  the  Elbe  after 
coarse  screening.38  The  outfalls  are  located  so  as 
to  obtain  suitable  diffusion,  and  the  results  have  been 
entirely  satisfactory,  although  the  conditions  are  less 
favorable  than  in  New  York.  No  solid  matter  of 
sewage  origin  appears  on  the  surface  of  the  water39 
and  no  nuisance  of  any  kind  is  apparent.40  In  ad- 
dition to  the  treatment  by  coarse  screening,  dredging 
is  resorted  to  almost  continuously  to  keep  the  river 
free  from  sewage  silt.41  The  dissolved  oxygen  of 
this  river  seldom  drops  below  50  per  cent,  of  satura- 
tion. 

The  City  of  Dresden,  located  inland  on  a  compara- 
tively small  river,  secures  satisfactory  results  through 
fine  screening  and  diffusion.42 

The  Delaware  River  at  Philadelphia  is  at  the 
present  time  digesting  large  quantities  of  untreated 
sewage  and  although  the  oxygen  content  has  been  re- 
duced in  certain  localities  to  somewhat  below  20  per 
cent,  of  saturation  during  the  summer  months,  yet 
no  odors  nor  other  nuisances  have  occurred.43 

The  total  amount  of  oxygen  available  for  the  di- 
gestion of  sewage  in  New  York  Harbor  has  been 
estimated  to  be  sufficient  to  oxidize  the  untreated 
sewage  from  approximately  7,000,000  people.  These 
figures  were  based,  however,  upon  a  uniform  dis- 
tribution of  the  sewage  throughout  the  Harbor.44 
Some  recent  estimates  of  the  population  of  the  entire 
Metropolitan  District  in  both  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  tributary  to  New  York  Harbor  would  place 
the  present  population  at  something  more  than  7,000,- 
000. 

The  fact  that  the  Harbor  in  the  main  channels  is 
now  satisfactorily  digesting  this  vast  quantity  of 
sewage,  which  is  discharged  without  treatment  and 
without  proper  distribution,  makes  it  evident  that 
the  waters  are  capable  of  assimilating  a  far  greater 
quantity  than  has  been  estimated.45 

When  all  the  sewage  reaching  the  harbor  shall 
have  been  treated  and  properly  distributed  and  dif- 
fused, it  would  seem  perfectly  safe  to  assume  that 
the  harbor  waters  will  be  capable  of  taking  care  of 
the  effluent  from  a  very  much  greater  population.46 

The  standard  of  cleanness  adopted  for  the  Harbor 
of  Greater  New  York  should  take  into  account  the 
various  local  conditions  in  the  various  parts  of  the 


37  The  condition  of  the  Thames  would  not  be  satis- 
factory in  New  York.    It  is  stated  on  the  authority 
of  F.  Agliffe,  Secretary  of  the  Port  of  London  Au- 
thority, the  successor  of  the  Thames   Conservancy 
Board  that  the  Thames  smells  of  its  sewage  about  12 
or  13  miles  above  and  below  the  main  outfalls,  or  for 
a  total  distance  of  about  25  miles. 

38  The  Hamburg  outlets  should  not  be  imitated  by 
New  York.    They  turn  upward  and  send  the  sewage 
to  the  surface  where  it  can  be  seen  by  those  who 
look  in  the  proper  place  for  it. 

39  Solid  matter  of  sewage  origin  appears  at  the 
surface  of  the  water  in  the  vicinity  of  the  main  Ham- 
burg outfalls.    The  solids  can  be  seen  from  landing 
stages   and  boats  and  the  position   of  the  sewage 
stream  in  the  river  can  be  detected  by  the  presence  of 
large  numbers  of  seagulls  which  feed  upon  the  solid 
matters. 

40  The  conditions  for  diffusion  are  more  favorable 
at  Hamburg  than  in  New  York,  since  the  water  is 
not  salt  at  Hamburg  and  the  sewage  consequently 
mixes  more  rapidly  with  the  water. 

41  Dredging  in  the  Elbe  has  not  been  so  much  em- 
ployed to  remove  deposits  of  sewage  origin  as  the 
natural  silt  of  the  alluvial  river.     It  is  due  to  ex- 
tensive dredging  operations  that  the  largest  ships  are 
now  able  to  reach  Hamburg  from  the  sea. 

42  Dresden  carries  its  sewage   to   a  single  point 
where  it  is  passed  through  fine  screens  and  discharged 
into  a  river  which,  unlike  the  waters  of  New  York 
harbor,  always  flows  in  one  direction.    The  dilution 
is  fairly  large  even  in  dry  weather. 

43  Philadelphia  is  making  plans  for  an  extensive 
system  of  main   drainage  and   sewage  disposal,   it 
being  "realized  that  with  the  increase  in  the  popula- 
tion and  the  consequent  added  load  placed  upon  the 
river,  its  oxidizing  power  will  soon  be  overtaxed,  and 
that  the  time  to  begin  the  building  of  the  collecting 
and   treatment   works    is    at   hand."    See   paper   by 
George  S.  Webster    in    the  Journal  of  the  Boston 
Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  May,  1914,  page  283. 

44  This  estimate  is  a  personal  opinion  and  is  con- 
tained in  the   report   of  Black   and   Phelps   to   the 
Board  of  Estimate,  February,  1911,  page  9,  and  is 
based  on  the  theory  that  the  sewage  would  be  dis- 
charged at  the  two  ocean  entrances,  an  impracticable 
assumption. 

45  The  water  in  the  main  channels  is  m  t  digesting 
all  the  sewage.    The  sewage  not  digested  is  producing 
nuisances   among  the   docks,  piers,  bays  and  other 
quiet  arms  of  the  harbor. 

46  This   is  the  Metropolitan   Commission's  belief. 
See  reply  to  criticism  24. 


22 


CRITICAL  EEPOET 


REPLIES 


Harbor  such  as  the  use  to  which  the  water-front  is 
to  be  put,  the  volume  of  clean  water  which  enters 
that  part  of  the  Harbor,  and  the  cost  of,  as  well  as 
the  space  available  for  treatment  of  the  sewage.47 
In  order  that  specific  requirements  may  be  made 
for  each  locality,  the  Harbor  may  be  divided  for  con- 
venience into  13  subdivisions  or  Harbor  units  as  fol- 
lows :48 

Harbor  Unit  1.  Hudson  River,  from  Battery  north 
to  City  Line. 

Harbor  Unit  2.  Lower  East  River,  from  south 
end  of  Governors  Island  north  to  Sunken  Meadows. 

Harbor  Unit  3.  Upper  East  River  from  Sunken 
Meadows  to  Throggs  Neck  (excepting  Flushing  Bay). 

Harbor  Unit  4.     Flushing  Bay. 

Harbor  Unit  5.  Long  Island  Sound,  Throggs 
Neck  to  City  Line. 

Harbor  Unit  6.  Harlem  River,  from  82d  street 
north  and  west  to  Hudson  River. 

Harbor  Unit  7.  Upper  Bay,  from  Narrows  to 
Hudson  River  off  Governors  Island. 

Harbor  Unit  8.     Newtown  Creek. 

Harbor  Unit  9.     Gowanus  Canal. 

Harbor  Unit  10.  Kill-von-Kull. 

Harbor  Unit  11.  Arthur  Kill. 

Harbor  Unit  12.  Lower  Bay  and  Atlantic  Ocean. 

Harbor  Unit  13.  Jamaica  Bay. 

The  relative  cleanness  of  these  various  units  at 
the  present  time  may  be  taken  as  a  guide  for  deter- 
mining what  conditions  may  be  economically  main- 
tained in  the  future.  It  is  assumed  that  bathing  or 
the  cultivation  of  shell  fish  will  not  be  permitted 
in  the  inner  Harbor,49  but  that  they  may  be  permitted 
in  some  of  the  outlying  Harbor  units  until  the  growth 
of  the  City  shall  have  changed  conditions  so  as  to 
render  it  no  longer  reasonably  economical  to  maintain 
the  waters  in  a  suitable  condition  for  such  uses.  Any 
standard  proposed  should  not  be  considered  in  the 
nature  of  a  rigid  rule  or  law,  but  rather  a  statement 
of  conditions  which  it  is  desired  to  maintain  and  to 
be  used  as  a  guide  for  the  establishment  of  treatment 
works  as  rapidly  as  they  become  necessary.50 

The  most  important  requirement  in  a  standard  of 
cleanness  is  the  immediate  abolition  of  all  local  nuis- 
ances in  every  part  of  the  Harbor.  Other  require- 
ments would  probably  have  to  be  modified  from  time 
to  time  with  the  growth  of  the  City  and  the  changing 
character  of  the  water-front.  In  the  final  determin- 
tion  of  such  a  standard  or  guiding  rules,  the  following 
requirements  may  reasonably  be  adopted: 

Treatment  should  be  established  to  the  extent  nec- 
essary to  keep  all  parts  of  the  Harbor  at  all  times 
free  from  visible  solid  matter  of  sewage  origin,  notice- 
able discoloration,  fields  of  oily  sleek,  odors  due  to 


47  This  is  practically  a  restatement  of  the  Metro- 
politan Commission's  opinion  as  printed  in  the  Com- 
mission's report  of  August,  1912,  pages  5-6,  69-70, 
and  the  report  of  April,  1910,  page  4(i.     See  also 
reply  24. 

48  In  its  August,  1912,  report,  page  15,  the  Met- 
ropolitan Commission  described  the  ten  main  divi- 
sions of  New  York  harbor  as  recognized  by  Govern- 
ment, State  and  municipal  authorities,  and  the  loca- 
tion, areas,  tidal  prisms  and  volumes  of  water  flowing 
and   other   features   of   these   divisions   were   fully 
described.     The  redivisioning  of  the  harbor,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  city  engineers  with  the  inclusion  of 
Gowanus  canal,  Newtown  creek  and  Flushing  bay  as 
separate  units,  is  unnecessary. 


49  This  is  a  restatement  of  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission's position  as  indicated  in  its  report  of  April, 
1910,  page  43.  See  also  reply  24. 


50  This  was  stated  by  the  Metropolitan  Commis- 
sion in  its  report  of  August,  1912,  page  70,  and  in 
its  Preliminary  Report  X,  page  4,  and  elsewhere. 
See  also  reply  24. 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


23 


sewage  or  trade  wastes,  material  deposits  of  sewage 
sludge,  and  to  maintain  in  each  Harbor  unit  at  all 
times,  under  the  most  unfavorable  conditions  of  tide, 
depth,  location,  season  and  temperature,  not  less  than 
certain  specific  quantities  of  dissolved  oxygen.51 

It  is  belived  that  the  dissolved  oxygen  in  some  of 
the  units  of  the  inner  Harbor  may  safely  be  allowed 
at  times  to  fall  somewhat  below  20  per  cent,  of  satur- 
ation. Other  Harbor  units,  more  closely  connected 
with  the  sources  of  clean  water,  may  consistently 
be  maintained  at  a  very  much  higher  standard  and 
tentative  percentages  may  be  adopted  from  time  to 
time  for  each  separate  Harbor  unit.52 

Such  a  guide  would  be  useful  for  indicating  the 
time  and  location  for  the  construction  of  additional 
works.  The  works  required  for  a  long  time  to  come 
will  probably  include  only  fine  screening  or  sedimen- 
tation combined  with  proper  distribution  and  diffu- 
sion into  the  main  channels,  except  in  Harbor  units 
12  and  13,  and  possibly  5,  where  further  refinements 
in  the  treatment  of  sewage,  even  in  some  cases  to 
the  extreme  of  sterilization,  may  be  required  for  the 
purpose  of  temporarily  preserving  bathing  beaches 
and  suitable  conditions  for  the  shell  fish  industry.53 

Ward's  Island  Project. 

The  so-called  Ward's  Island  project,  with  its  inter- 
ceptors and  treatment  works,  violates  a  fundamental 
principle  which  should  be  followed  in  preparing  a 
plan  of  main  drainage,  viz.:  that  the  sewage  should 
be  uniformly  distributed  and  diffused  through  the 
Harbor  waters.54 

This  scheme  concentrates  the  sewage  from  a  large 
area  and  discharges  an  enormous  volume  of  a  partially 
purified  effluent  into  one  of  the  shallowest55  and  nar- 
rowest portions  of  the  harbor,  so  centrally  located  that 
it  is  a  maximum  distance  from  any  source  of  clean 
water.56  Furthermore,  the  float  observations  of  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  indicate  that  the  waters  of 
the  East  river  in  this  locality  oscillate  back  and  forth 
with  but  little  resultant  change  in  tidal  flow.  Other 
and  larger  bodies  of  water  can  be  reached  for  the 
discharge  of  this  sewage  at  no  greater  expense.57 

The  sewage  from  the  Manhattan  area  proposed  to 
be  tributary  to  Ward's  Island  can  be  diverted  to  the 
Hudson  River,  which,  on  account  of  its  great  mini- 
mum, daily  resultant  flow  of  1,500,000,000  gallons 
and  its  large  tidal  prism,  can  digest  all  of  the  effluent 
from  this  source.  The  money  required  to  build  the  pro- 
posed interceptors  along  the  Harlem  and  East  River 
fronts,  the  tunnel  to  pumping  station  and  treatment 
works  on  Ward's  Island  would  not  only  pay  for  the 
works  required  to  screen  and  discharge  sewage  into 
the  Hudson  River,  but  also  would  go  far  towards 


51  These  requirements  were  stated  or  provided  for 
in  the  original  standard  of  cleanness  for  the  har- 
bor, as  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  in 
its  report  of  August,  1912,  page  70.    Also  see  replies 
to  criticism  7,  8,  23,  26,  30,  34,  35  and  36;  also 
reply  121. 

This  is  in  agreement  with  the  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission.     See  reply  to  criticism  24. 

52  This   proposition   is   impracticable  because   de- 
cided differences  cannot  exist  in  the  various  neigh- 
boring parts  of  the  harbor  for  the  reason  that  water 
circulates  more  or  less  freely  through  all  under  the 
tidal  actions.     The  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion has  already  stated  that  the  enforcement  of  its 
standard  of  cleanness  should  be  left  to  the  judgment 
of  the  proposed  central  Commission.     See  reply  to 
criticism  29. 

53  These  are  the  methods  described  in  the  Metro- 
politan Commission's  Preliminary  Reports  III  to  VI, 
inclusive,  issued  between  November,  1911,  and  Feb- 
ruary, 1913.    See  reply  24. 

54  The  Metropolitan   Commission's  Wards  Island 
project  is  not  in  violation  of  this  principle,  but  in 
strict  accordance  with  it.     See  reply  24.     The  high 
velocities  and  boils  make  Hell  Gate  a  most  desirable 
place  for  sewage  diffusion. 

55  Instead  of  being  one  of  the  shallowest,  this  is 
one  of  the  deepest  parts  of  the  harbor.     Depths  of 
150  feet  are  found  close  to  the  site  of  the  proposed 
works. 

56  Instead  of  being  at  a  maximum  distance  from 
any  source  of  clean  water,  the  proposed  outlet  is 
comparatively  close  to  the  Sound  entrance  of  the 
harbor.     The  cleanness  of  the  water  of  the  Upper 
East  river  near  this  point  is  shown  by  the  high  per- 
centage of  oxygen  present.     See  report  of  the  Met- 
ropolitan Sewerage  Commission,  August,  1912,  pages 
57-60. 

57  It  would  cost  more  to  dispose  of  the  sewage  in 
the  way  proposed  by  the  city  engineers  than  by  the 
Metropolitan  Commission's  plan,  when  reckoned  on 
the  basis  of  annual  maintenance  and  fixed  charges. 
The  cost  of  reconstructing  the  existing  sewerage  sys- 
tem and  the  great  expense  of  making  new  household 
connections  with  the  storm  water  and  domestic  sew- 
age should  be  added  to  the  city  engineers'  project. 
There  is  the  further  objection  that  public  opinion 
would  protest  against  discharging  so  much  sewage 
into  the  Hudson  from  a  drainage  area  not  naturally 
tributary  to  it. 


24 


CRITICAL  REPOET 


REPLIES 


building  an  entirely  new  and  much  needed  separate 
system  of  sewers  for  this  area.  Such  a  system  is 
now  being  designed.  Interference  with  the  existing 
and  proposed  subway  lines  will  be  avoided  by  carrying 
the  storm  water  across  the  tops  of  the  subways  di- 
rectly to  the  Harlem  River,  while  the  sanitary  sewage 
will  be  carried  in  a  low  level  system  with  trunk 
lines  in  tunnel  below  the  subways  and  sloping  from 
the  Harlem  River,  westerly  to  8th  avenue.  Here  the 
sewage  will  be  pumped  up  to  gravity  tunnels  through 
which  it  will  flow  to  the  Hudson  River.  Probably 
two  or  three  of  these  tunnels  will  be  found  to  be 
economical.  In  this  system  much  of  the  sewage  from 
the  higher  area  of  Harlem  along  the  easterly  slope 
of  the  westerly  ridge  may  be  intercepted  and  turned 
back  through  the  tunnels  without  pumping.  Under 
the  Metropolitan  Commission's  scheme  all  of  the  sew- 
age would  have  to  be  pumped  at  an  additional  yearly 
charge  of  many  thousands  of  dollars. 

The  sewage  from  this  system  will  be  treated  by 
fine  screening  and  discharged  from  submerged  outlets 
into  the  main  channel  of  the  Hudson  River.  If  in 
the  distant  future  further  treatment  should  become 
desirable,  sedimentation  or  other  objectionable  con- 
cealed works  could  be  constructed  along  the  water- 
front outside  the  railroad  tracks.58 

It  probably  will  be  found  feasible  to  tunnel  Man- 
hattan Island  at  about  179th  street  and  discharge 
all  the  effluent  from  the  Harlem  River-Bronx  inter- 
ceptor north  of  Brook  avenue  through  it  into  the 
Hudson  River.  Here,  too,  treatment  similar  to  that 
for  the  Manhattan-Harlem  district  can  be  applied 
and  the  sewage  from  the  easterly  slopes  of  Manhattan 
intercepted  and  discharged  without  pumping. 

Estimates  based  upon  the  dilution  in  various  por- 
tions of  the  harbor  in  1940,  as  given  by  the  Metro- 
politan Commission,  indicate  that  should  the  plan 
be  carried  out  as  above  outlined,  the  ratio  of  dilution 
in  the  Hudson  River  would  still  be  ample  for  an  in- 
definite length  of  time.  The  remainder  of  the  sewage 
from  the  East  Bronx  interceptor  from  Brook  avenue 
to  Hunts  Point  can  be  treated  and  discharged  at  a 
convenient  place  near  Hunts  Point  or  on  Rikers 
Island. 

The  elimination  of  the  expensive  Ward's  Island 
project  will  relieve  this  most  polluted  portion  of  the 
harbor  and  become  an  important  factor  in  making 
the  construction  of  the  Ocean  Island  project  unnec- 
essary for  as  long  a  time  as  can  be  reasonably  fore- 
seen.59 If  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  scheme  is 
adopted,  it  is  quite  likely  that  ultimately  not  only 
one,  but  two  tunnels  to  the  proposed  ocean  island 
will  be  necessary  as  previously  outlined.60 


58  Sedimentation     is     objectionable     in     built-up 
sections  of  cities,  owing  to  the  odors  produced  and 
the  popular  protests  which  are  always  aroused  against 
sewage  disposal  works  in  the  vicinity  of  dwellings 
and  business  places.     The  grease  from  the  sewage 
would  show  at  the  surface  of  the  water.    This  water- 
front is  a  park.    The  water  is  not  deep  enough  nor 
swift  enough  to  insure  prompt  diffusion  except  off 
Fort  Washington  Park,  and  it  would  not  be  feasible 
to  discharge  all  of  the  sewage  at  that  point.     See 
replies  to  criticism  16,  17,  76,  82,  83,  84,  85  and  123. 

59  Why  make  the  ocean  island  project  unnecessary 
if  it  affords  the  cheapest  and  best  means  of  disposing 
of  the  sewage  ? 

60  This  indefinite  and  sweeping  statement  is  in- 
conclusive both  as  to  cost  and  results.     The  Metro- 
politan   Commission's    project    has    been    carefully 
passed  upon   by  the  following  experts :   Gilbert  J. 
Fowler,  John  D.  Watson,  Rudolph  Hering,  George 
W.  Fuller.     If  the  sewage  of  the  Lower  East  river 
and  Harlem  were  discharged  into  the  Hudson,  that 
stream  might  become  overburdened  and  the  adoption 
of  proper  remedial  measures  would  then  be  exces- 
sively costly.    The  Hudson  must  receive  a  large  in- 
crease in  the  sewage  which  is  now  discharged  into  it 
from  the  areas  naturally  tributary  to  it.     By  the 
city     engineers'     project,     over     300     million     gal- 
lons of   sewage   would  be  discharged   through  two 
or  three  outlets  within  a  distance  of  about  3  miles. 
Added  to  this  sewage  in  the  Lower  Hudson  would  be 
about    100    million    gallons    from    the    population 
directly  tributary. 


CRITICAL  REPOET 


REPLIES 


25 


Ocean  Island  Project. 

The  Ocean  Island  and  tunnel  with  the  pumping 
plant  at  the  Wallabout  have  been  recently  disap- 
proved by  Messrs.  Rudolph  Bering  and  George  W. 
Fuller,  the  two  experts  whose  reputations  and  pecul- 
iar fitness  to  pass  upon  the  question  compel  the 
greatest  respect  for  their  opinions.61 

Mr.  Fuller,  in  reporting  upon  this  project,  states 
as  follows:  "As  to  the  outlet  island  project  for  the 
sewage  of  the  lower  East  River  division  as  tentatively 
recommended  early  in  1913  by  the  Commission,  I 
am  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence  now  available 
does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  this  project  is 
a  proper  one."62 

Mr.  Bering  gives  his  opinion  in  regard  to  this 
project  as  follows:  "The  expense  of  construction 
and  operation  of  this  project  is  large.  In  justification 
thereof,  you  have  given  a  number  of  reasons.  I  shall 
now  comment  upon  them  and  feel  obliged  to  maintain 
the  view  that  the  adoption  of  this  project  is  not 
warranted  at  the  present  time."63 

A  fair  consideration  of  the  facts  relating  to  the 
necessity  for  this  ocean  island  and  tunnel  seems  to 
justify  these  opinions. 

The  Metropolitan  Commission  has  recently  re- 
duced its  estimate  of  cost  of  this  island  and  tunnel 
from  about  $23,000,000  to  $17,500,000.  This  re- 
duction in  the  estimated  cost  of  construction  is  ap- 
parently accompanied  by  a  reduction  in  the  size  and 
capacity  of  the  works  by  the  elimination  of  storm 
water.64  The  Metropolitan  Commission  also  pro- 
poses an  expenditure  of  about  $4,000,000  for  works 
required  to  deliver  the  sewage  from  the  south  shore 
of  Brooklyn  into  the  ocean  tunnel  and  for  additional 
treatment  works  at  the  island.65  The  total  expendi- 
ture proposed  for  the  island  and  appurtenances  is 
therefore  estimated  at  about  $21,500,000.  It  has 
never  been  stated  how  this  estimate  of  cost  was  ar- 
rived at,  or  what  precedents  or  actual  experience 
the  estimators  had  to  guide  them.  For  some  of  the 
most  important  parts  there  is  no  precedent,  and  it 
is  not  known  that  any  one  with  experience  in  the 
planning  or  construction  of  works  of  this  character 
or  magnitude  was  employed  in  making  the  estimate. 
The  estimate,  therefore,  seems  to  be  a  very  rough 
one  at  best,  and  it  is  possible,  as  stated  by  one  of  the 
experts,  that  the  actual  cost  would  be  far  in  excess 
of  $21,000,000.66 

The  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission 
states  that  he  does  not  now  recommend  the  immediate 
construction  of  these  works,  but  rather  that  they 
should  be  deferred  until  the  year  1925,  or  ten  years 
from  the  present  date;  that  in  the  meantime  the 
tributary  intercepting  sewers  and  enormous  screening 


61  This  project  has  been  approved  as  a  future  pos- 
sibility by  both  experts  referred  to  and  the  first  step 
has  been  approved  by  both.    See  correspondence  ap- 
pended to  reports  of  Messrs.  Hering  and  Fuller  in 
the  report  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission 
of  April  30,  1914,  Part  III,  Chapter  I,  pages  218 
and  253. 

62  Mr.  Fuller  has  described  himself  as  in  favor  of 
taking  the  first  step  in  the  Lower  East  river  project 
and  leaving  the  necessity  for  further  work  to  be 
determined  by  experience.     See  correspondence  ap- 
pended to  Mr.  Fuller's  report  in  the  report  of  the 
Metropolitan    Sewerage    Commission    of    April    30, 
1914,  Part  III,  Chapter  I,  page  218. 

03  See  reply  to  criticism  62. 


64  The  reduction  by  the  revision  was  about  l*/2 
instead  of  4  million  dollars.     The  $22,874,000  con- 
tained in  Preliminary  Report  VI,  page  47,  includes, 
as  stated,  $4,072,000  for  the  Jamaica  Bay  Division, 
leaving  $18,802,000  for  the  cost  of  the  island  project, 
as  compared  with  the  revised  cost  of  $17,394,000. 

65  The  inclusion  of  this  disposal  for  a  part  of  the 
Jamaica  bay  sewage  results,  instead  of  a  $4,000,000 
additional  expense,  in  a  saving  of  $5,378,000  in  first 
cost  and  $471,760  in  annual  charges. 


66  The  Metropolitan  Commission's  estimate  is  not 
a  rough  one.  This  could  readily  be  determined  by 
the  city  engineers  on  inquiry. 


26 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


plants  should  be  built.67  These  screening  plants 
would  treat  200,000,000  gallons  of  sewage  per  day, 
concentrated  at  two  points,  one  on  each  side  of  the 
lower  East  River,  and  would  discharge  it68  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Corlears  Hook,  and  South  5th  Street, 
one  of  the  most  highly  polluted  portions  of  the  Har- 
bor. Float  observations  made  by  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  show  that  the  tidal  currents  would  not 
be  effective  in  removing  sewage,  but  that  it  would 
oscillate  back  and  forth  for  some  time  before  it  finally 
passes  southward  through  the  Narrows.69  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  burden  of  pollution  in  this  portion  of 
the  Harbor  is  already  too  great,  and  it  must  be  plainly 
evident  that  the  proposed  removal  of  7%  per  cent,  of 
organic  matter,  or  a  total  improvement  in  the  condi- 
tion of  the  water  of  much  less  than  this  amount  will 
not  materially  improve  matters  because  the  benefits 
will  be  nullified  by  the  concentration  at  two  points 
of  a  vast  volume  of  sewage  which  is  now  discharged 
along  a  stretch  of  several  miles  of  water-front.70  It 
is  also  apparent  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  commence 
the  construction  of  the  Ocean  Island  post  haste,  im- 
mediately after  the  completion  of  the  intercepting 
sewers  and  the  screening  plants.71  These  two  screen- 
ing plans  alone  would  cost  a  very  large  sum  and  would 
probably  be  useless  as  soon  as  the  Ocean  Island  has 
been  built.72 

It  will  require  at  least  five  years  to  complete  this 
island  and  its  tributary  works,  so  that  the  claim  of 
the  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission  that 
his  Commission  is  in  substantial  agreement  upon 
the  matter  with  its  two  most  recent  advisors,  does 
not  appear  to  be  warranted.73  On  the  other  hand, 
it  does  appear  that  it  has  been  placed  in  the  back- 
ground with  the  full  expectation  of  making  it  the 
main  feature  of  the  scheme  at  a  more  opportune 
time,  as  it  has  been  featured  for  the  last  year  in  the 
Commission's  reports  and  statements  by  its  members, 
as  well  as  by  the  press.74 

Lower  East  River. 

It  is  possible  that  if  the  Lower  East  river  prob- 
lem is  studied  in  a  manner  which  its  importance  war- 
rants by  those  familiar  with  the  possibilities  in  design 
and  construction  of  sanitary  works  of  this  character 
and  magnitude,  it  will  be  found  that  there  are  three 
better  alternatives  than  those  proposed.75 

First — It  is  probable  that  the  interceping  sewers 
as  proposed  may  be  entirely  done  away  with  and 
greater  economy  secured  both  in  construction  and 
operation  by  the  substitution  of  sedimentation  tanks 
of  proper  design.76  This  is  clearly  feasible  for  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  water-front  which  the  pro- 
posed intercepting  sewers  would  serve,  and  where  it 


67  If  the  first  step  affords  sufficient  protection  to 
the  water,  no  further  step  need  be  taken  to  carry  out 
the  ocean  island  project.     If,  on  the  other  hand, 
further  protection  is  found  to  be  needed,  it  would  be 
afforded  by  building  the  rest  of  the  ocean  island 
project.     See  condensed  statement  of  the  work  of 
the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  Section  III, 
paragraph  c,  Appendix  to  the  city  engineers'  report 
here  printed.    The  large  cost  of  sedimentation  tanks 
it  is  proposed  to  defer  until  a  later  date. 

68  The  discharge  is  intended  to  take  place  through 
multiple  outlets  and  into  water  which,  except  for 
this  discharge,  would  be  very  much  cleaner  than  it 
is  at  the  present  time. 

69  The  sewage  would  not  pass  through  the  Nar- 
rows.    It  is  practically  all  digested  in  the  harbor. 
The  processes  of  digestion  seem  to  be  misunderstood 
by  the  city  engineers.    They  have  been  described  by 
the  Metropolitan   Sewerage  Commission  in   its  re- 
port of  April,  1910,  page  461,  and  Preliminary  Re- 
port XV,  page  23. 

70  This  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  nor  of  Messrs.  Hering  and  Fuller. 

71  It  is  intended  that  there  shall  be  sufficient  op- 
portunity afforded  after  the  completion  of  the  first 
step  to  determine  whether  the  second  will  be  neces- 
sary.    This  question  may  well  be  left  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  new  centralized  authority.    See  reply  29. 

72  The  screening  plants  would  be  permanently  use- 
ful in  preparing  the  sewage  for  pumping  and  final 
disposal  at  the  island;  also  to  care  for  the  future 
excess  over  200  million  gallons  per  day.    This  would 
amount  to  a  large  volume  on  the  Brooklyn  side  by 
1940. 

73  The  correspondence  which  shows  that  the  Met- 
ropolitan  Commission  and  its  two  recent  advisers 
are  in  substantial  agreement  was  offered  to  the  city 
engineers  and  refused.     It  is  found  in  Part  III, 
Chapter   I,   pages   218   and   253   of  the  report  of 
the  Metropolitan  Commission  of  April  30,  1914. 

74  This  is  an  accusation  of  bad  faith  and  need  not 
be  answered. 

75  This  sarcastic  reflection  upon  the  members  of 
the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  their  staff 
and  experts,  and  arrogant  assumption  of  authority 
on  the  part  of  the  city  engineers  need  not  be  answered. 

70  Sedimentation  tanks  would  be  costly,  their  odors 
would  arouse  popular  objection  and  they  would  not 
lend  themselves  to  a  more  efficient  treatment  of  the 
sewage  in  case  more  efficient  treatment  were  found 
necessary.  See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's 
Preliminary  Report  XIII,  page  10.  See  also  replies 
to  criticism  16,  17,  58,  82,  83,  84,  85  and  123. 


CEITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


27 


is  not,  fine  screening  could  be  substituted.  It  being 
established77  that  the  ocean  island  project  will  not 
be  necessary,  the  only  result  of  expending  $4,000,000 
for  these  interceptors  in  accordance  with  the  scheme 
of  the  Metropolitan  Commission  will  be  to  concen- 
trate at  two  points  a  very  large  volume  of  sewage 
from  which  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  coarser 
solids  have  been  removed.78  The  burden  of  pollu* 
tion  in  the  river  near  the  points  of  discharge  will 
be  so  increased  that  local  nuisances,  especially  near 
the  shores,  will  appear  within  a  short  time.79  The 
main  body  of  the  river  would  not  be  relieved  materi- 
ally of  its  burden  of  pollution. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  maximum  digestion  of  sew- 
age matters  in  the  Harbor,  it  is  obviously  desirable 
to  secure  as  uniform  distribution  and  diffusion  as 
practicable.80  This  result  can  best  be  obtained  by 
the  use  of  a  number  of  submerged  outlets  rather  than 
two  very  large  ones,  thus  saving  the  greater  part  of 
the  cost  of  interceptors.81 

The  money  which  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission proposes  to  expend  for  these  interceptors 
would  go  very  far  toward  the  construction  of  sedi- 
mentation tanks  of  sufficient  capacity  to  treat  the 
sewage  from  the  territory  in  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn 
which  the  proposed  interceptors  would  serve.82  In 
Manhattan  these  tanks  could  be  located  under- 
neath the  marginal  street.83  Such  treatment  would 
remove  fully  four  times  as  much  of  nuisance-produc- 
ing matter  as  the  Hamburg  screens  proposed  and 
would  very  materially  relieve  this  part  of  the  river 
from  its  present  burden.  The  difficulties  which  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  expect  will  be  encountered 
in  the  construction  and  operation  of  sedimentation 
tanks  can  be  overcome  without  serious  difficulty.84 

Second — Should  further  study  indicate  the  desira- 
bility of  building  the  intercepting  sewers  for  the  lower 
East  river  and  works  for  the  treatment  of  sewage  at 
the  point  of  discharge,  they  should  be  planned  so  as 
to  secure  the  fullest  benefits  of  clarification  and  dis- 
tribution which  are  practicable  within  the  limits  of 
the  Harbor  itself.  If  the  sewage  collected  must  be 
pumped,  as  proposed,  sedimentation  tanks  can  be 
used  and  the  sewage  freed  of  fully  60  per  cent,  of  its 
suspended  matter.85  Should  it  develop  for  reasons 
which  are  not  now  apparent,  that  the  use  of  sedimen- 
tation is  impracticable,  the  alternative  would  be  fine 
screening,  by  which  about  35  per  cent,  of  suspended 
matter  can  be  removed.86  The  effluent  from  this 
treatment  should  be  discharged  into  the  Harbor  not 
in  the  highly  polluted  portion87  of  the  East  river,  but 
at  some  point  south  of  Governor's  Island,  where,  with 
ebb  tides,  half  of  the  whole  volume  discharged,  both 
liquid  and  solid,  would  be  carried  directly  through 
the  Narrows  and  into  the  ocean.88  The  effluent  dis- 


77  It  has  not  been  established  that  the  ocean  island 
project  will  not  be  necessary. 

78  The  result  indicated  will  not  be  the  only  one. 
Other  results  will  be  the  prevention  of  nuisance  at 
the  present  sewer  oiitlets,  in  the  docks  and  slips,  the 
removal   of   much   coarse   suspended   matter   easily 
recognizable  as  of  sewage  origin  and  the  placing  of 
the  sewage  burden  in  those  parts  of  the  harbor  where 
it  can  best  be  carried. 

79  An  unsupported  and  unwarranted  assumption. 

80  This  is  not  necessarily  so.    It  is  necessary  only 
to  avoid  overburdening  the  water  at  any  point. 

81  The  Metropolitan   Commission's  plans  provide 
for  multiple   outlets.     See   Metropolitan    Sewerage 
Commission's  Preliminary  Report  VI,  page  55. 

82  The  circumstances  of  construction  and  cost  of 
sedimentation  tanks  in  various  situations  have  been 
estimated.     The  lowest  estimates  for  tanks  to  treat 
the  sewage  in  the   territory   from  Manhattan  and 
Brooklyn    which    the    proposed    interceptors    would 
serve  is  $9,191,580.     See  replies  to  criticism  16,  17, 
58,  76,  83,  84,  85  and  123. 

83  Tanks  could  not  well  be  so  located  because  of 
cost,  size,  interference  with  other  structures  and  risk 
of  explosion.    See  replies  to  criticism  16,  17,  58  and 
76.    See  replies  84,  85  and  123. 

84  The   difficulties  which  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission expects  are  based  on  careful  studies  of  the 
experience  of  other  cities,  a  consideration  of  the  local 
situation  and  on  the  advice  of  the  most  capable  ex- 
perts obtainable.     See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission's Preliminary  Report  XIII.     See  references 
to  reply  83. 

85  Sedimentation  tanks  cannot  be  employed  in  the 
built-up  sections  of  cities  except  in  unusual  circum- 
stances.    The  experience  of  other  cities  is  against 
such  use  and  the  conditions  along  most  of  the  Man- 
hattan and  Brooklyn  waterfront  are  especially  un- 
favorable.   See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission's 
Preliminary  Report  VI,  pages  32  and  33.    See  also 
replies  to  criticism  16,  17,  58,  76,  82,  83  and  123. 

86  If  practicable,  fine  screens  should  be  used.    The 
efficiency  thus  obtained  would  apparently  remove  the 
city  engineers'  objections  to  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission's plans  for  the  Lower  East  river. 

87  The    discharge   would   take    place    into    water 
which  would  be  relatively  clean  as  compared  with 
the  present  polluted  conditions. 

88  This  is  a  surprising  statement  and  lacks  con- 
firmation. 


28 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


charged  during  the  flood  tides  might,  if  the  move- 
ments of  the  floats  which  the  Metropolitan  Sewer- 
age Commission  used  are  to  be  taken  as  a  guide,  be 
carried  into  the  East  river,  but  would  be  carried 
entirely  out  of  the  Upper  bay  on  the  succeeding  ebb 
tide.89  This  sewage  could  be  treated  in  sedimentation 
tanks  located  on  the  southerly  end  of  Governor's 
Island,  or  on  an  extension  which  might  be  built  to 
this  island.90 

The  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission has  stated  that  the  matter  of  using  this  part 
of  the  island  for  such  a  purpose  has  been  taken  up 
with  the  authorities  at  Washington,  and  that  the 
conclusion  reached  is  that  it  would  not  be  allowed.01 
The  opinion  of  an  official  or  ofEcer  of  the  army,  more 
or  less  informally  expressed  in  correspondence  with 
the  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission, is  not  at  all  conclusive  in  this  matter,  and 
should  it  be  deemed  expedient  the  matter  might  be 
taken  up  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment with  quite  a  different  result. 

Third — The  adoption  of  an  outlet  south  of  Gov- 
ernor's Island  suggests  another  alternative  for  this 
part  of  the  Harbor.  Such  an  outlet  from  the  inter- 
ceptors proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission would  necessitate  the  construction  of  a  sewer 
along  the  Brooklyn  water-front  from  Wallabout  to 
a  point  south  of  Atlantic  Basin.  This  sewer  would 
naturally  intercept  all  the  existing  sewer  outlets  be- 
tween these  points,  and  it  might  be  found  economical 
and  more  effective  not  to  build  an  interceptor  on 
the  Manhattan  side,  but  instead  to  make  use  of  this 
outlet  sewer  along  the  Brooklyn  water-front  for  inter- 
cepting an  equal  or  greater  quantity  of  sewage  from 
Brooklyn  for  discharge  at  Governor's  Island.  Under 
this  plan  sewage  from  the  Manhattan  side  would  be 
treated  locally  by  fine  screening  or  sedimentation. 

Although  a  careful  estimate  has  not  been  made,  it  is 
thought  that  $6,500,000  would  cover  the  cost  of  the 
second  or  third  alternative.  Either  alternative  sug- 
gested would  be  a  permanent  improvement,  and  would 
be  sufficient  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time  to 
come.92 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  lower  Man- 
hattan has  probably  already  reached  its  maximum  de- 
velopment, so  far  as  population  is  concerned,  and 
there  will  be  no  material  increase  in  the  future  of 
sewage  matters  which  will  be  delivered  to  this  part 
of  the  harbor  from  this  borough.  It  is  even  possible 
that  the  future  may  see  less  resident  population  in  this 
part  of  the  city  than  at  present.  The  portion  of 
Brooklyn  which  contributes  sewage  to  the  lower  East 
river  is  already  fully  occupied  and  improved  and 
probably  no  great  increase  in  density  of  population 
will  occur  in  the  future.93 


89  The  Metropolitan  Commission's  float  records  do 
not  support  this  ns.-i>rtion.    The  complete  float  recouls 
may  be  found  in  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion's Preliminary  Report  VIII,  pages  15  to  46. 

90  The  United  States  Government  would  probably 
object,  the  odors  would  be  offensive  in  the  vicinity, 
the  point  of  outfall  would  be  too  close  to  the  Passaic 
Valley  sewer  outfall,  which  will  discharge  300  mil- 
lion gallons   of   septic   sewage   per   day -within   2\/-2 
miles  of  the  proposed  works.    See  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission's  Report  of  April  30,  1910,  page 
327. 

91  The  President  never  made  this  statement. 


92  Before  recommending  this  ocean  island  project, 
the  Metropolitan  Commission  considered  the  cost  of 
an   interceptor  and  disposal  plant  such   as  is  here 
suggested,  except  that  the  works  would  be  located 
on  an  island  opposite  Red  Hook  and  just  below  Gov- 
ernors Island,  but  did  not  consider  it  as  good  as  the 
plans  proposed. 

93  The  Metropolitan  Commission  expects  a  large 
increase  in  population  in  sub-divisions  22,  23,  24  and 
25,  which  lie  in  Brooklyn.    They  contain  7482  acres 
and  a  present  population  of  903,400,  which  is  121 
to  the  acre.     These  subdivisions  naturally  drain  to 
the  Lower  East  river  between  Newtown  creek  and 
Brooklyn  bridge. 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


29 


Jamaica  Bay: 

The  plans  prepared  by  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn 
for  the  collection  and  treatment  of  sewage  on  the 
south  shore,  when  compared  with  those  proposed  by 
the  Metropolitan  Commission,  show  an  economy  in 
construction  and  capitalized  cost  of  operation  of  ap- 
proximately $3,000,000.M 

A  discussion  of  these  two  schemes  in  too  great 
detail  is  not  attempted  here  because  it  is  thought 
that  it  would  consume  too  much  time  and  perhaps 
would  not  be  of  sufficient  interest  to  the  Board  at  this 
time. 

Briefly  outlined,  the  Brooklyn  and  Queens  plan 
includes : 

First — Treatment  works  at  some  point  near  the 
head  of  the  bay,  where  the  sewage  from  all  the  low 
lying  district  about  the  head  of  the  bay  and  near  the 
eastern  boundary  of  the  City  will  be  treated  as  the 
conditions  require.  The  exact  location  of  these  works 
should  be  given  further  study.  The  location  either 
on  Jo  Go's  Marsh,  as  recommended  by  the  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission,  or  at  some  point  on 
the  mainland  as  recommended  by  Black  &  Phelps, 
may  prove  to  be  desirable. 

Second — It  includes  a  sanitary  intercepting  sewer 
extending  from  the  present  Twenty-sixth  Ward  Dis- 
posal Works  easterly  toward  the  easterly  boundary 
of  the  Borough  of  Queens  and  works  for  the  treat- 
ment of  sewage  collected  in  this  sewer  at  a  point 
near  the  present  Twenty-sixth  Ward  Works,  where 
the  City  already  owns  a  large  area  of  land  purchased 
for  this  purpose.  For  many  years,  if  not  indefinitely, 
sewage  can  be  treated  at  this  location  with  economy 
and  without  objectionable  consequences. 

Third — The  delivery  of  all  the  domestic  sewage 
which  concentrates  at  the  head  of  the  Paerdegat  Basin 
to  Barren  Island  through  suitable  intercepting  sewers. 
All  plans  thus  far  suggested  have  been  in  agreement 
in  this  respect. 

Fourth — It  includes  the  work  on  Barren  Island 
for  the  treatment  of  sewage  not  only  from  the  Paer- 
degat, but  also  from  the  drainage  area  tributary  to 
the  Sheepshead  bay  works,  and  a  large  additional  area 
on  the  south  shore.  The  effluent  is  to  be  discharged 
into  Rockaway  Inlet  after  treatment  sufficient  to 
prevent  undue  pollution  of  the  waters  of  the  bay,  and 
the  fouling  of  the  shores  and  beaches.  The  plans  of 
the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  up  to  the 
date  of  the  previous  hearing  before  the  Board  of 
Estimate95  contemplated  this  site,  and  without  any 
question  it  is  the  most  available  one  for  a  sewerage 
treatment  plant  to  be  found  about  Jamaica  bay. 
Such  a  disposition  of  the  sewage  can  be  made  in  this 


94  This  may  be  considered  a  fair  agreement  under 
the  circumstances  and  suggests  that  the  estimates 
made  by  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn  are  not  far  wrong. 
See  reply  to  criticism  24. 


95  The  Metropolitan  Commission  still  favors  this 
scheme  unless  the  ocean  island  project  is  carried  out, 
in  which  event  it  would  save  the  city  a  large  sum  of 
money  to  send  the  sewage  of  the  Western  Jamaica 
Bay  subdivision  to  the  ocean  island  for  disposal  in- 
stead of  disposing  of  the  sewage  by  treatment  works 
at  Barren  Island.  See  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission's Preliminary  Report  VI,  pages  44  and  45. 
See  reply  24. 


30 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


manner  that  for  a  period  of  time  beyond  which  it  is 
not  proper  or  customary  to  make  provision,  no  ques- 
tion can  be  raised  as  to  its  sufficiency.  Drainage 
plans  are  now  before  the  Board  of  Estimate  for  adop- 
tion, which  provide  for  the  utilization  of  Barren 
Island  for  this  purpose. 

It  should  be  remarked  here  that  the  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission  has  laid  considerable  stress 
upon  a  criticism  of  the  alleged  intention  of  the  City 
authorities  to  build  numerous  basins  or  short  canals 
about  the  shores  of  Jamaica  bay,  which  are  to  be- 
come receptacles  for  domestic  sewage  and  trade 
wastes.  It  has  been  made  so  prominent  that  some  of 
the  experts  employed  have  made  it  a  point  to  concur 
in  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  condemnation  of 
such  a  project.96 

A  more  careful  investigation  would  have  disclosed 
the  fact  that  these  basins  are  absolutely  necessary 
as  outlets  for  storm  water  sewers;  that  the  City  has 
not  for  many  years  built  sewers  designed  to  discharge 
domestic  sewage  into  such  canals,  but  that  on  the 
contrary  it  has  spent  considerable  money  to  avoid 
doing  so.  A  State  law  of  many  years'  standing  for- 
bids such  a  thing.97 

Screening  Plants: 

While  the  general  project  for  screening  the  sewage 
from  the  westerly  slopes  of  the  Borough  of  Man- 
hattan and  South  Brooklyn  and  discharging  it  from 
submerged  outlets  beyond  the  pierhead  lines  is  un- 
doubtedly feasible  and  proper,  neither  the  type  of 
screen  proposed  nor  the  locations  for  the  plants 
as  shown  on  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  plan  are 
well  chosen.  Various  reconstructions  are  under  con- 
sideration in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  and  radical 
changes  in  the  sewer  system  are  contemplated  in  con- 
nection with  the  proposed  plan  for  improving  the 
railroad  and  dockage  facilities  along  the  Hudson 
River,  which  probably  will  seriously  modify  the  plans 
proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion.98 

The  large  number  of  screening  plants  proposed  are 
designed  to  be  equipped  with  screens  of  the  Hamburg 
type.99  The  Hamburg  screen  consists  of  bars  spaced 
so  as  to  afford  openings  of  from  %  to  %  of  an  inch 
in  width,  which  are  cleaned  by  a  specially  designed 
type  of  comb.  It  will  remove  only  the  larger  sus- 
pended particles  and  the  machinery  required  in  its 
operation  is  intricate  and  expensive. 

It  cannot  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagination  be 
classed  as  a  fine  screen  and  it  is  not  effective  in 
reducing  the  total  organic  or  polluting  matter  in  the 
sewage.  The  President  of  the  Metropolitan  Commis- 
sion at  the  hearing,  stated  that  it  was  expected  by 


96  The  Metropolitan  Commission's  only  mention 
of  this  point  was  in  its  Preliminary  Report  III,  issued 
November,  1911,  page  5. 


97  The  present  condition  of  Paerdegat  Basin  and 
other  creeks  discharging  into  Jamaica  bay  is  not 
such  as  to  allay  misapprehension  in  this  direction. 


98  Such  modifications  as  are  necessary  can  readily 
be  made  in  the  general  plans  which  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  has  proposed.     See  replies  to  criticism 
15, 19,  24  and  29. 

99  Any  efficient  type  of  screen  would  be  equally 
acceptable.    The  Hamburg  type  has  been  mentioned 
because  it  has  been  found  practicable  to  use  it  where 
the  range  of  tide  has  been  considerable.    See  replies 
to  criticism  15,  19,  22,  24,  29,  98,  100,  101,  103 
and  122. 


CRITICAL  REPOET 


REPLIES 


31 


its  use  to  remove  about  15  per  cent,  of  the  matter 
in  suspension.  To  understand  the  meaning  of  this 
statement  it  should  be  remembered  that  organic  mat- 
ter is  the  source  of  all  offensive  pollution  in  sewage, 
that  on  the  average  about  50  per  cent,  of  this  organic 
matter  is  in  solution  and  incapable  of  removal  by 
any  form  of  screening.100  Only  about  7*£  per  cent, 
of  the  total  organic  matter  in  sewage  can  therefore  be 
removed  by  this  screen.  Considering  the  fact  that 
large  quantities  of  polluting  matter  reach  the  Harbor 
from  sources  other  than  domestic  sewage,  such  as 
storm  water,  waste  matter  from  vessels,  etc.,  prob- 
ably the  total  improvement  that  can  be  hoped  for  by 
the  use  of  this  type  of  screen  is  not  greater  than  6 
per  cent.101 

A  sufficient  commentary  upon  the  esteem  in  which 
it  is  held  by  those  who  are  most  familiar  with  the 
subject  is  the  fact  that  in  the  cities  of  Germany, 
where  screening  is  quite  generally  a  part  of  the  system 
of  treatment  employed,  this  type  has  made  no  head- 
way.102 Fine  screens  which  can  remove  suspended 
matter  as  small  as  %  to  1/16  of  an  inch  in  diameter 
and  effect  a  reduction  of  about  35  per  cent,  of  the 
total  suspended  matter,  are  much  more  desirable  and 
are  available  at  a  smaller  cost,  both  for  sites  and  for 
installation.  Such  screens  are  now  working  elsewhere 
in  localities  very  similar  to  our  own  and  can  with  a 
moderate  amount  of  skill  be  adapted  to  the  condi- 
tions to  be  met  in  this  city.103 

Local  Nuisances: 

While  no  actual  nuisances  from  smell  now  exist 
in  the  Harlem  river,  the  Newtown  Creek  canal  and 
Wallabout  canal,104  it  is  very  probable  that  within 
the  next  few  years  during  the  summer  months  both 
local  and  general  nuisances  will  occur  and  that  meas- 
ures should  be  taken  for  their  abatement.  Such  nuis- 
ances existed  for  many  years  in  the  Gowanus  canal, 
or  until  the  present  pumping  station  and  tunnel  was 
built  for  the  purpose  of  improving  its  sanitary  condi- 
tion. Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  water  in 
the  canal  is  now  practically  as  clean  as  that  in  the 
bay  from  which  it  is  drawn,  that  it  at  all  times  con- 
tains a  fair  amount  of  dissolved  oxygen  and  that  fish 
are  .frequently  seen  near  its  upper  end,  it  is  stated  by 
the  Metropolitan  Commission  that  its  condition  is 
not  improved  and  that  it  is  one  of  the  danger  points 
in  the  Harbor.105  It  is  well  to  correct  these  misrep- 
resentations because  the  plant  has  accomplished  its 
purpose  and  has  demonstrated  that  the  sanitary  con- 
dition of  a  polluted  body  of  water  of  this  kind  can 
be  satisfactorily  improved  in  this  manner. 

Such  nuisances  as  exist  in  the  Harbor  at  the  pres- 
ent time  and  such  as,  in  the  natural  order  of  things, 


100  The  composition  of  the  sewage  has  been  stated 
by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  in  a  num- 
ber of  places.     See  report  of  April,  1910,  Part  III, 
Chapter  X,  pages  427-462 ;  also  report  of  August, 
1912,  Chapter  III,  pages  28-30;  Preliminary  Report 
VI,  pages  16-19.     Screenings  contain  a  higher  per- 
centage of  organic  matter  than  do  the  total  suspended 
solids.     See  replies  101,  102  and  122. 

101  The  Metropolitan  Commission  has  not  advo- 
cated the  Hamburg  type  of  screen  as  a  means  of  re- 
ducing the  oxygen-demanding  properties  of  the  sew- 
age so  much  as  for  the  removal  of  a  great  part  of  the 
large   solids   separately   recognizable   as   of   sewagj 
origin.     The  presence  of  these  solids  in  the  water 
violates  the  first  provision  of  the  standard  of  clean- 
ness which  is  agreed  to  by  the  city  engineers  and 
which  says :     "Garbage,  offal  or  solid  matter  rec- 
ognizable  as  of  sewage  origin  shall  not  be  visible 
in  any  of  the  harbor  waters."    Considering  the  differ- 
ence between  screenings  and  sewage  sludge,  6  or  even 
7l/2  per  cent,  is  believed  to  be  too  low.    See  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission's  Preliminary  Report 
VI,  February,  1913,  page  30.     See  replies  100,  102 
and  122. 

102  That  this  type  of  screen  is  thought  to  be  well 
adapted  to  its  work  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the 
new  screening  station  at  Hamburg  was  equipped  with 
the  same  type  of  screen  some  years  after  the  first  in- 
stallation.    See  replies  100,  101  and  122. 

103  The  correctness  of  this  opinion  is  open  to  doubt. 

104  Decided  nuisances  both  to  smell  and  sight  exist 
at  these  three  places. 


105  The  Metropolitan  Commission  never  made  this 
statement.  In  Preliminary  Report  VI,  pages  9- 
10,  issued  February,  1913,  appears  the  only  ref- 
erence made  to  this  canal.  The  water  is  described 
as  being  polluted  to  the  point  of  being  black  and  foul- 
smelling. 


32 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


will  occur  in  the  next  few  years  are  local  and  may 
be  abated  without  great  expense.106  These  nuisances 
are  located,  in  most  cases,  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  sewer  outlets,  which  in  time  past  have 
been  improperly  located  at  bulkhead  lines,  between 
piers  or  at  other  points  where  tidal  currents  are  not 
effective  in  sweeping  away  and  rapidly  diffusing  the 
sewage. 

The  existence  of  piers  and  other  irregularities  of 
shore  line  along  the  water  front  interfere  with  the 
tidal  flow  and  inevitably  cause  some  stagnation  in 
the  water  along  the  shores.  It  follows  naturally 
from  the  uses  to  which  these  piers  are  put,  that  the 
slips  must  gradually  accumulate  quantities  of  solid 
matter  which  does  not  all  come  from  the  sewers  but 
a  large  proportion  of  which  is  subject  to  putrefaction 
and  as  soon  as  the  oxygen  in  the  water  has  become 
sufficiently  reduced  gives  off  offensive  odors.  Foecal 
matter107  and  other  materials  of  sewage  origin  are 
often  visible  at  existing  sewer  outlets  and  constitute 
nuisances  offensive  to  sight.  Practically  all  nuisances 
which  exist  in  New  York  Harbor  at  the  present  time 
are  due  to  the  above  easily  understood  causes.  They 
may  be  abated  by  submerging  and  extending  all  sewer 
outlets  at  least  as  far  as  the  pierhead  line108  or  to 
points  where  they  will  be  washed  by  tidal  currents 
of  sufficient  strength  to  rapidly  carry  away  and  diffuse 
the  effluent  throughout  the  main  currents  of  the 
Harbor  and  by  dredging  between  the  bulkhead  and 
pierhead  lines  where  sludge  deposits  occur,  especially 
in  the  neighborhood  of  sewer  outlets. 

Dredging  is  one  of  the  first  remedies  that  should 
be  applied  and  pending  the  construction  of  works 
to  prevent  or  reduce  deposits,  the  removal  of  sludge 
by  dredging  from  the  slips  and  other  places  of  de- 
posit will  serve  to  very  materially  improve  the  general 
condition  of  the  Harbor,  as  well  as  to  eliminate  local 
nuisances  resulting  from  sludge  deposits.  Further- 
more, dredging  can  be  made  a  permanently  econom- 
ical and  suitable  adjunct  to  the  disposal  works,  as 
has  been  done  in  harbors  of  other  large  cities,  where 
the  removal  of  sludge-producing  matter  by  disposal 
works,  has  been  only  partial,  as  is  proposed  for  New 
York. 

Dredging  would  also  have  special  application  to  the 
removal  of  accumulations  of  wash  from  the  streets 
which  is  carried  directly  into  the  harbor  by  the  storm 
water  sewers.  Dredges  of  special  design  would  be 
used,  and  the  sludge  taken  to  sea  in  scows.109 

Status  of  Sewage  Treatment. 

In  answer  to  one  of  the  questions  asked  by  the 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  Mr.  Fuller 
stated  that  "In  my  judgment  the  art  of  sewage 


106  The  nuisances  are  both  local  and  general,  as 
stated  in  the  Metropolitan  Commission's  reports.  The 
sanitary  condition  of  the  harbor  is  described  with 
considerable  particularity  in  the  report  of  the  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission,  April  30,  1910,  Part 
I,  Chapter  I,  pages  15-62. 


107  A  description  of  the  objectionable  conditions 
produced  by  piers  and  the  improper  location  of  sewer 
outlets  occupies  a  large  part  of  the  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission's  report  of  April  30,  1910.     In 
Chapter  X,  pages  427-461,  is  given  a  description  of 
the   phenomena  of  diffusion  and   digestion  of  the 
sewage  materials  after  they  are  discharged  into  the 
water.     It  is  stated  that  the  whole  problem  of  the 
disposal  of  sewage  in  New  York  harbor  largely  re- 
solves itself  into  a  question  of  how,  and  to  what 
extent,  diffusion  and  digestion  may  be  carried  on 
with  the  certainty  of  producing  satisfactory  results. 

108  The  solution  here  proposed,  although  it  appears 
simple  enough,  is  by  no  means  easy  of  accomplish- 
ment.    For  the  most  part  the  sewers  of  Manhattan 
have  already  been  carried  to  the  outer  ends  of  the 
piers  without  satisfactory  results. 


109  Some  dredging  will  always  be  necessary  in  New 
York  harbor,  and  within  economical  and  sanitary 
limits  dredging  affords  a  useful  means  of  removing 
unavoidable  deposits.  Dredging,  however,  must  be 
regarded  as  a  partial  and  costly  remedy  rather  than 
a  prevention. 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


33 


treatment  has  reached  a  point  such  as  to  warrant 
at  this  time  the  adoption  of  a  definite  policy  and 
general  plan  for  the  main  drainage  works  of  New 
York."  While  we  consider  this  answer  to  be  reason- 
able, its  interpretation  should  not  be  such  as  to  lead 
to  the  assumption  that  no  substantial  advances  in 
the  art  are  to  be  expected  in  the  future.110 

The  time  is  already  in  sight  when  the  sanitary  con- 
ditions in  the  harbor  will  become  intolerable  and  their 
improvement  imperative.  The  cost  of  the  work  re- 
quired to  secure  the  necessary  improvement  is  so 
great  that  it  goes  without  saying  that  there  must  be 
a  comprehensive  plan  in  accordance  with  which  the 
various  parts  of  the  work  should  be  built.  The  ne- 
cessity for  this  improvement  is  such  that  the  time 
when  it  must  be  carried  out  cannot  be  indefinitely 
delayed,  nor  chosen  at  random,  because  the  art  of 
sewage  treatment  may  be  greatly  changed  and  simpli- 
fied by  discoveries  and  inventions  that  may  be  made. 
The  only  alternative  is  to  make  use  of  the  most  effec- 
tive and  economic  processes  which  are  now  available, 
even  though  other  and  better  ones  may  hereafter  be 
brought  into  use,  which  will  cause  the  abandonment 
of  the  present  ones  within  the  next  generation. 

The  managers  of  our  best  equipped  power  plants 
are  not  blame-worthy  because  they  are  continually 
sending  to  the  scrap  heap  machines  which  are  still 
in  good  condition,  to  make  way  for  others  designed  on 
more  advanced  lines  and  more  economical  in  opera- 
tion. Many  very  able  men  are  constantly  employed 
upon  problems  relating  to  sewage  treatment,  and 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  advances  in  the 
art  will  continue  in  the  future  as  they  have  in  the 
past,  although,  perhaps,  somewhat  more  slowly  and 
along  different  lines. 

The  possibilities  of  tank  treatment,  mechanical  fil- 
tration or  separation,  sludge  treatment,  etc.,  are  by 
no  means  exhausted,  and  the  best  results  that  are 
possible  today  may  be  far  exceeded  both  in  economy 
of  treatment  and  in  quality  of  effluent  by  the -time 
the  works  proposed  for  this  city  can  be  put  into 
complete  operation. 

The  City  should  proceed  in  such  a  manner  that 
advantage  can  always  be  taken  of  any  advances  in 
the  art  which  may  be  made  with  the  least  expense, 
and  any  works  which  are  to  be  built  should  be  de- 
signed so  that  the  City  would  not  be  irrevocably 
committed  to  unnecessary  expenditures  such  as  has 
been  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
sion.111 

A  dministration. 

And  finally,  there  is  nothing  connected  with  the 
construction  of  the  works  proposed  by  the  Metro- 


110  If  the  report  alluded  to  is  examined,  it  is 
not  likely  that  its  meaning  will  be  misunderstood. 
A  copy  of  this  report  was  transmitted  to  the  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment, April  27,  1914. 


111  This  pronouncement  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  expressed  opinions  of  the  Metropolitan  Com- 
mission except  as  to  the  last  clause,  which  is  irrele- 
vant and  incorrect.  See  reply  24. 


34 


CRITICAL  REPORT 


REPLIES 


politan  Commission  nor  in  the  suggested  modifica- 
tions of  them  which  is  so  new  or  strange  that  it  can- 
not be  successfully  carried  out  by  the  Borough  au- 
thorities who  are  already  engaged  in  designing  and 
building  works  of  a  similar  character,  and  in  some 
cases  of  equal  magnitude  and  difficulty,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment.112 

The  interference  of  an  expensive  Federal  and  State 
Commission  to  control,  and  a  Commission  under 
State  authority  to  construct  and  operate  sewerage 
works  is  entirely  unnecessary.  The  examples  of  other 
great  cities  in  the  execution  of  similar  works  which 
have  been  cited,  such  as  Chicago,  London,  Paris  and 
Berlin,  bear  out  this  belief  if  the  analogies  are  strictly 
drawn.113 

This  problem  is  something  more  than  merely  the 
collection  of  data,  the  demonstration  of  the  condition 
of  the  harbor  and  the  making  of  reports  and  recom- 
mendations for  its  improvement.  It  is  a  problem  of 
engineering,  design  and  construction,  of  finance  and 
administration,  and  its  final  settlement  and  decision 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  men  of  broad  experience 
and  intimate  knowledge  of  such  matters  as  they  af- 
fect this  City,  and  no  body  of  men  is  so  well  fitted 
for  this  task  as  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment.114 

Conclusions. 

1.  Divested  of  its  supposed  mystery  and  reduced 
to  reasonable  proportions,  this  entire  problem  is  sim- 
ply one  of  placing  the  harbor  in  a  condition  free 
from  all  nuisances  and  fit  for  any  reasonable  and 
necessary  use.115 

2.  Main  drainage  works  should  be  designed  to 
utilize  the  digestive  capacity  of  the  harbor  to  the 
greatest  extent  practicable  by  effective  distribution 
of  the  sewage  effluent.116 

3.  The  Ward's  Island  project  and  the  lower  East 
river  interceptors  and  screens  do  not  provide  for 
proper  distribution.117 

4.  The  intentions  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage 
Commission  in  regard  to  the  Ocean  Island  scheme 
have  not  been  made  clear,  but  the  initial  steps  pro- 
posed in  their  general  plan  are  such  as  will  ultimately 
make  the  island  necessary.118 


112  This  opinion   is   in   direct  opposition  to   the 
recommendation    of    the    Metropolitan    Commission 
which  favors  the  creation  or  designation  of  a  central 
board  to  construct  and  maintain  the  necessary  works. 
See  replies  to  criticism  11,  12,  13,  19,  22,  113,  114 
and  124. 

113  The  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works 
of  London  and  vicinity,  Boston  and  vicinity,  Chicago 
and  many  other  cities  have  been  built  and  main- 
tained by  special  commissions  created  for  the  pur- 
pose.   See  references  to  reply  112. 

114  Excepting  in  its  last  phase,  this  statement  is  in 
strict  agreement  with  the  expressed  opinions  of  the 
Metropolitan  Commission.     In  the  condensed  state- 
ment of  the  work  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission 
appended  to  the  city  engineers'  report  there  will  be 
found,  in  Appendix  II,  Section  IV,  the  scheme  of  ad- 
ministration which  the  Metropolitan  Commission  rec- 
ommends and  the  reasons  for  this  recommendation. 

115  There  is  no  mystery  about  this  matter,  so  far 
as  the  Metropolitan  Commission  is  aware.    With  re- 
gard to  the  rest  of  the  proposition  the  Metropolitan 
Commission  is  in  accord.     See  references  to  reply 
112,  also  24. 

116  This  is  a  fundamental  principle  underlying  all 
the  Metropolitan  Commission's  work.     See  reply  to 
criticism  24. 

117  This    is    denied    for    the    following   principal 
reasons :  In  regard  to  the  Wards  Island  project,  mul- 
tiple outlets  are  a  part  of  the  design.    The  point  for 
the  outlets  is  where  the  water  flows  more  rapidly 
than  almost  anywhere  else  in  the  harbor.    The  water 
is  very  deep.    Over  150  feet  of  depth  can  be  availed 
of  for  the  purpose  of  mixing  the  sewage  with  the 
water,  if  such  great  depth  is  desired.    In  regard  to 
the  Lower  East  river  project,  there  will  be  multiple 
outlets  as  for  the  Wards  Island  plant.    The  water  is 
deep  and  the  currents  rapid.     Under  these  circum- 
stances there  would  be  adequate  opportunity  for  dis- 
tribution.   Distribution  is  essential  before  the  diges- 
tion of  sewage  can  be  accomplished.    The  sewage  must 
be  mixed  with  water  before  the  water  can  render 
the  sewage  materials  inert.    This  principle  has  been 
kept  in  mind  throughout  the  Commission's  work  of 
planning  and  has  been  fully  described  in  the  Metro- 
politan Commission's  Report  of  April,  1910,  Part  III, 
Chapter  X,  page  453. 

118  This  project  has  been  announced  for  more  than 
a  year  and  there  has  been  ample  opportunity  given 
to    the    city    engineers    to    understand    it.      There 
has    been    but    one    alteration    of    material    conse- 
quence in  the  plan  and  that  is  the  introduction  of 
the  progressive  principle  whereby  the  works  would 
be  built  in  two  stages,  but  only  the  first  stage  com- 
pleted in  case  experience  showed  that  to  be  sufficient. 


CEITICAL  EEPOET 


REPLIES 


35 


5.     With  a  suitable  general  plan  the  Ocean  Island 
scheme  is  unnecessary.119 


6.  On  the  south  shore  of  Long  Island,  at  Barren 
Island  and  elsewhere,  there  are  suitable  sites  for  dis- 
posal plants  discharging  their  effluent  into  Jamaica 
bay.  These  plants  can  be  more  economically  used 
than  the  Ocean  Island  outlet.120 


7.  The  standard  of  cleanness  under  which  the 
works  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission were  designed  contained  too  high  a  require- 
ment for  dissolved  oxygen,  but  the  late  complete 
abandonment  of  the  dissolved  oxygen  section  was 
equally  unwise.121 


8.  The  Hamburg  type  of  screen  will  not  give  as 
good  results  as  can  be  obtained  with  some  other 
types.122 


That  the  first  stage  would  not  make  the  second  stage 
necessary  is  shown  by  the  opposition  of  Consulting 
Engineers  Hering  and  Fuller  to  the  second  stage  and 
their  endorsement  of  the  first.  See  Metropolitan 
Sewerage  Commission's  Eeport  of  April  30,  1914, 
Part  III,  Chapter  I,  pages  193  to  253. 

119  After  some  years  of  study  and  the  considera- 
tion of  the  best  expert  advice  obtainable,  the  Metro- 
politan Commission  has  arrived  at  the  opinion  that 
the  ocean  island  plan  is  a  necessary  thing  to  look  for- 
ward to  as  an  ultimate  measure  of  protection.  Before 
reaching  this  opinion,   the  Commission  considered 
various  other  alternative  projects,  both  in  regard  to 
cost  and  efficiency  and  obtained  the  most  competent 
European  experts  to  go  over  the  ground  and  give 
their  advice.     In  no  other  way  at  so  little  cost  can 
the  burden  of  pollution  be  so  materially  lessened. 

120  If  there  is  any  point  of  general  agreement  be- 
tween  the   Metropolitan   Commission  and  the  city 
engineers    it    is    in    regard    to    this    point.      The 
Metropolitan    Commission   has   suggested   sites   for 
works  both  at  Barren  Island  and  the  upper  part  of 
Jamaica  bay  which  appear  to  be  approved  by  the 
city    engineers.      Only,    in    case    the    ocean    island 
project    is    carried    out,    it    would    be    more    eco- 
nomical to  take  a  large  part  of  the  Jamaica  bay  sew- 
age to  that  island  than  to  build  large  works  at  Barren 
Island  to  purify  the  sewage.    See  Metropolitan  Sew- 
erage Commission's  Preliminary  Eeport  VI,  pages 
45  and  46.    Also  see  reply  24. 

121  The  term  abandonment  indicates  that  the  speci- 
fication has  been  deserted,  cast  aside.    It  is  quite  the 
reverse.     The  Commission  should  not  be  misunder- 
stood or  misquoted  in  regard  to  the  oxygen  require- 
ment.   Its  position  is  that  if  the  other  specifications 
of  the  standard  of  cleanness  are  complied  with,  there 
will  be  enough  oxygen  in  the  water  to  satisfy  all  the 
requirements.      The  two  consulting  experts  of  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  whom  the  city  engineers 
have  praised  most  highly  are  in  full  accord  with  the 
Metropolitan  Commission's  present  position  with  re- 
spect to  oxygen.     See  correspondence  appended  to 
reports  of  Messrs.  Hering  and  Fuller  in  the  report 
of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission,  April  30, 
1914,  pages  218  and  253.     See  replies  to  criticism 
7,  8,  23,  26,  30,  34,  35,  36  and  51. 

122  The  Hamburg  screen  is  capable  of  removing  a 
large  part  of  the  suspended  particles  separately  recog- 
nizable as  of  sewage  origin,  and  it  has  been  suggested 
by  the  Metropolitan  Commission  for  this  reason  and 
because  it  has  been  shown  by  years  of  experience  to 
be  efficient  in  operating  where  there  is  considerable 
range  of  tide.     If  a  more  efficient  and  economical 
screen  can  be  found,  the  Metropolitan  Commission 
would  not  be  opposed  to  it.    See  replies  to  criticism 
15,  24,  29,  98,  100,  101  and  102. 


36 


CRITICAL  REPOET 


REPLIES 


9.  Sedementation   tanks  under  marginal  streets 
are  feasible,  and  in  some  cases  desirable.123 

10.  The  present  organizations  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment  and  of  the  Borough 
Presidents  are  fully  capable  of  designing,  construct- 
ing and  administering  a  main  drainage  system.124 
Respectfully  submitted, 

NEW  YORK  SEWER  PLAN  COMMISSION, 

NELSON  P.  LEWIS,  Chairman 

E.  P.  GOODHICH, 

G.  W.  TILESON, 

J.  W.  F.  BENNETT, 

FOSTER  CBOWELL, 

LEWIS  NIXON, 

CHARLES  E.  GREGORY,  Secretary. 


123  The  Metropolitan  Commission  gave  very  care- 
ful consideration  to  the  feasibility  of  locating  sedi- 
mentation basins  beneath  the  marginal  streets  and 
discussed  this  subject  with  some  of  its  most  experi- 
enced   engineering  experts.     See  reports    of  Karl 
Imhoff,  Preliminary  Report  XIII,  March,  1914;  re- 
port of  George  E.  Datesman  in  the  report  of  the  Met- 
ropolitan Commission  of  April  30,  1914,  page  261. 
The  Commission's  opinion  is  that  only  in  exceptional 
situations  should  sedimentation  basins  be  so  located. 
See  report  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion, April  30,  1914,  Part  III,  Chapter  I,  page  168. 
See  replies  to  criticism  16,  17,  58,  76,  82,  83,  84 
and  85. 

124  The  opinion  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission  is 
that  in  order  to  design,  build  and  maintain  a  system 
of  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for  a  city,  there 
should    be    a   central    commission.      The    principal 
reasons  for  this  opinion  are  contained  in  Part  IV  of 
the  condensed  statement  of  the  work  of  the  Metro- 
politan Sewerage  Commission  appended  to  Appendix 
II  of  the  city  engineers'  report.     A  central  com- 
mission has  been  considered  necessary  by  practically 
all    those    persons    who    have    been    consulted    on 
this  subject  by  the  Metropolitan  Commission,  includ- 
ing two  ex-Mayors  of  the  City  of  New  York.      A 
strong  argument  for  the  creation  of  a  central  com- 
mission charged  solely  with  the  work  of  main  drain- 
age   is    afforded    by    the    report    of    the    city    en- 
gineers on  the  plan  of  main  drainage  for  New  York 
City  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Com- 
mission which  is  here  printed  and  under  discussion. 
After  having  been  authorized  and  directed  for  about 
a  year  to  make  plans  of  main  drainage  for  New  York 
and  having  been  afforded  during  this  time  every 
facility  to  become  familiar  with  the  reports  and  other 
work  of  the  Metropolitan  Commission,  the  city  en- 
gineers have  produced  a  report  consisting  largely 
of  misstatements  and  immature  and  illogical  sug- 
gestions in  criticism  of  the  Metropolitan  Commis- 
sion's work.    Apparently  the  great  variety  of  duties 
performed  by  the  city  engineers  has  prevented  that 
careful  study  of  the  main  drainage  and  sewage  dis- 
posal problem  which  the  situation  called  for. 

Other  reasons  why  it  is  now  considered  by  the 
Metropolitan  Commission  better  to  place  the  con- 
structive work  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  rather 
than  in  the  hands  of  the  boroughs  or  leave  it  to  be 
built  under  the  present  organization  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment  here  follow: 

a.  The  sewage  problem  is  essentially  one  problem, 
and  not  an  aggregation  of  more  or  less  loosely  related 
parts.  The  pollution  is  not  only  local,  but  general, 
and  the  system  which  is  to  correct  the  conditions 
should  be  general  also.  Such  divisions  of  the  work 


CRITICAL  EEPORT  REPLIES  37 

as  are  necessary  should  depend  upon  the  opportun- 
ities and  necessities  which  the  various  parts  of  the 
city  present  and  not  upon  political  boundaries. 

b.  The  construction  of  a  main  drainage  and  sew- 
age disposal  system  requires  a  high  degree  of  scien- 
tific and  technical  skill  and  may  well  receive  the 
concentrated  attention  of  a  special  board  or  commis- 
sion for  construction.    The  experience  gained  in  con- 
structing and  operating  the  works  in  one  locality 
should  be  completely  available  for  all.     This  would 
be  automatically  provided  for  in  a  central  construct- 
ing commission,  but  could  never  be  perfectly  realized 
if  the  works  were  built  by  the  boroughs. 

c.  For  the  gradual  construction  of  the  works  there 
would  be  need  of  continuity  and  consistency  of  pur- 
pose   and    this    could    more    certainly    be    insured 
through  a  commission  than  through  the  five  separate 
boroughs. 

d.  Borough  construction,  however  appropriate  for 
local  sewerage,  the  object  of  which  is  to  protect  the 
land  against  pollution,  is  not  so  suitable  for  main 
drainage  and  disposal  works  whose  purpose  it  is  to 
improve  and  protect  the  general  waterways  of  the 
city.      Harbor  work  should  be,   and  generally   is, 
strongly  centralized,  as,  for  example,  dredging  and 
dock  building.     See  replies  to  criticism  11,  12,  13, 
19,  22,  112,  113  and  114. 

METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION, 
GEORGE  A.   SOPEH,   President, 
JAMES  H.  FUERTES,  Secretary, 
H.  DE  B.  PARSONS, 
CHARLES  SOOYSMITH, 
LINSLT  R.  WILLIAMS. 


38 


APPENDIX  I 

METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION  OF  NEW  YORK, 
17  BATTERY  PLACE,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

NELSON  P.  LEWIS,  ESQ.,  April  16,  1914. 

Chief  Engineer,  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment, 
Municipal  Building,  New  York  City. 

DEAE  SIR:  You  have  asked  in  what  order  this  Commission  would  have  the  City  proceed  to  carry  out 
the  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works  which  were  discussed  at  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor- 
tionment hearing  on  April  14,  and  you  have  expressed  particular  interest  in  the  projects  for  the  protection 
of  the  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem  sections.  This  information  is  desired  by  you  for  the  use  of  the  Con- 
sulting Engineers  who  have  been  requested  to  discuss  the  Commission's  work  at  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment  to  be  held  on  the  llth  of  May. 

The  first  step  recommended  is  the  construction  of  the  interceptors,  grit  chambers,  screening  plants  and 
submerged  outfalls  for  the  Lower  East  river  territory.  The  Manhattan  interceptor  would  collect  the  sewage 
from  Broad  street  to  26th  street  and  discharge  through  a  pumping  station,  grit  chamber  and  screening  plant, 
to  be  located  at  Corlears  Hook.  On  the  Brooklyn  side  the  interceptors  would  extend  between  Huron  street 
and  Classon  avenue,  with  the  pumping  station,  grit  chamber  and  screening  plant  at  South  5th  street. 

The  Manhattan  works  would  deal  with  an  estimated  dry  weather  flow  of  99,000,000  gallons  and  the 
Brooklyn  works  with  101,000,000  gallons  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  estimated  cost  of  construction  is 
$4,095,000  and  the  maintenance  and  fixed  charges  about  $361,000.  There  would  also  be  severally  isolated 
screening  plants  located  along  the  Lower  East  river,  estimated  to  cost  $710,000,  with  total  annual  charges  of 
about  $75,000. 

At  the  same  time,  or  immediately  after,  the  foregoing  works  for  the  Lower  East  river  are  taken  in  hand, 
attention  should  be  given  to  the  works  discharging  at  Wards  Island.  The  first  installation  would  include 
the  following:  An  interceptor  on  the  Manhattan  shore  of  the  Harlem,  extending  from  106th  street  to  148th 
street,  and  in  The  Bronx  from  Brook  avenue  to  149th  street,  with  tunnels  to  Wards  Island  from  114th 
street  in  Manhattan  and  Willow  avenue  in  The  Bronx.  On  Wards  Island  there  would  be  a  pumping  station 
and  a  treatment  plant  sufficient  for  the  sewage  to  be  expected  in  1920. 

The  Lower  East  river  and  Harlem  works  thus  far  referred  to  would  probably  be  sufficient  until  the 
year  1925. 

When  it  became  necessary  to  afford  the  Lower  East  river  a  greater  degree  of  protection  than  the  screen- 
ing plants  at  Corlears  Hook  and  South  5th  street  could  render,  the  sewage  collected  to  these  two  points 
should  be  taken  to  the  ocean  island.  This  would  involve  the  construction  of  a  siphon  from  Corlears  Hook 
to  South  5th  street,  together  with  a  pumping  station  at  the  latter  point,  force  mains  to  Wallabout  street, 
delivering  to  a  main  sewer  which  would  carry  the  sewage  to  the  ocean  island  and  the  construction  of  the 
island,  the  final  instalation  including  the  main  pumping  station,  outfall  tunnel  and  treatment  works.  The 
total  cost  for  the  entire  instalation,  including  the  first  and  second  stages,  would  be  about  $17,500,000,  with 
fixed  charges  and  maintenance  of  about  $1,312,000.  To  this  should  be  added  the  cost  of  isolated  screen- 
ing plants  on  the  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  shores,  $4,200,000,  with  annual  charges  for  operation  and  fixed 
charges  of  $575,000. 

If  the  ocean  island  project  is  to  be  carried  out  by  1925,  as  the  Commission  thinks  will  be  necessary,  it 
will  be  desirable  to  carry  to  the  island  a  large  part  of  the  sewage  of  the  western  Jamaica  bay  subdivision. 
The  quantity  of  sewage  thus  provided  for  by  1940  will  amount  to  136,000,000  gallons  per  day.  By  sending 
this  sewage  to  the  outlet  island  a  large  saving  can  be  effected  in  the  cost  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  at 
Barren  Island  through  works  of  high  efficiency  at  that  point.  The  size  and  cost  of  the  tunnel  from  the 
mainland  to  the  island  would  be  increased,  as  would  the  settling  basin  capacity  on  the  island  and  the 
total  maintenance  and  fixed  charges  would  be  larger  also.  The  comprehensive  form  of  the  ocean  island 
project  for  which  the  Commission  has  made  estimates  represents  a  total  cost  of  $21,466,000,  including 
$4,072,000  for  the  Jamaica  Bay  division.  The  total  maintenance  and  fixed  charges  amount  to  about  $1,- 
597,000,  including  $286,000  chargeable  to  the  Jamaica  Bay  division. 


Before  the  ocean  island  project  is  carried  out  it  will  probably  be  necessary  to  begin  the  construction  of 
other  parts  of  the  general  plan  for  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for  the  City,  including  the  Tallmans 
Island,  Clason  Point  and  Jo  Cos  Marsh  works  and  the  small  plants  for  the  Richmond  territory. 

The  Commission  considers  it  unwise  and  unnecessary  to  state  with  exactness  how  much  work  shall 
be  built  each  year,  preferring  to  leave  this  matter  largely  to  the  constructing  body  and  to  the  judgment  of 
the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment. 

Very  sincerely, 

(Signed)     GEORGE  A.  SOPER,  PRESIDENT. 

APPENDIX  II 

METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION  OF  NEW  YORK, 
17  BATTERY  PLACE,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

March  18,  1914. 
To  the  Members  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment: 

SIRS  :  In  accordance  with  instructions  from,  the  Legislature  and  with  appropriations  aggregating  ap- 
proximately $250,000  from  New  York  City  during  the  last  eight  years,  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commis- 
sion has  made  investigations  and  general  plans  for  a  system  of  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for  the 
entire  city. 

The  investigations  and  planning  have  been  carried  on  by  the  Commissioners,  of  whom  four  are  En- 
gineers and  one  is  a  Physician,  aided  by  a  corps  of  trained  assistants  and  with  the  advice  of  twenty  con- 
sulting experts. 

The  system  proposed  consists  largely  of  interceptors  running  along  the  waterfront  to  collect  the  sew- 
age to  a  number  of  centrally  located  disposal  plants,  where  sufficient  of  the  impurities  can  be  removed  to 
permit  the  effluent  to  be  discharged  into  the  harbor  waters  without  producing  danger  or  offense.  No  change 
would  be  made  in  the  local  sewers  except  to  connect  them  with  the  interceptors. 

The  system  proposed  is  recommended  both  as  a  plan  and  policy  for  construction  to  be  carried  out  in 
successive  steps  and  not  as  one  undertaking.  Some  parts  are  needed  for  the  immediate  future  and  should 
be  taken  in  hand  at  once;  the  remainder  can  be  deferred  until  required. 

The  plans  are  sufficiently  flexible  to  permit  of  the  adoption  of  any  discoveries  or  improvements  in  the 
art  of  sewage  disposal  which  may  be  made.  From  the  beginning  the  works  will  constitute  a  well  co-ordinated 
scheme  of  main  drainage  for  the  city  which  will  utilize  the  absorptive  capacity  of  the  harbor  waters  to 
the  greatest  extent  consistent  with  due  regard  to  the  public  health  and  welfare. 

In  the  Commission's  opinion,  there  is  no  need  of  further  investigations  or  comprehensive  planning. 
In  the  projects  proposed  the  approximate  location,  size,  capacity,  cost  and  operating  expenses  are  given. 
Detailed  surveys,  borings  and  the  preparation  of  contract  plans  will  be  needed,  and  these  can  best  be  pre- 
pared by  those  charged  with  the  work  of  construction. 

The  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  has  recommended,  in  a  report  to  the  Mayor  dated  January  7, 
1914,  that  a  commission  be  at  once  created,  or  an  existing  Commission  designated,  to  proceed  with  the  de- 
tailed studies  and  plans  which  should  form  part  of  the  construction  of  the  necessary  works,  and  the  members 
have  placed  their  resignations  in  the  hands  of  the  Mayor,  to  take  effect  as  soon  as  their  final  report,  now  in 
preparation,  can  be  completed,  which  it  is  expected  will  not  be  later  than  April  30,  1914. 

Respectfully, 

GEORGE  A.  SOPER, 
JAMES  H.  FUERTES, 
H.  deB.  PARSONS, 
CHARLES  SOOYSMITH, 
LINSLY  R.  WILLIAMS, 

Commissioners. 
Per  GEORGE  A.  SOPER,  President. 

Appended  hereto  is  a  condensed  statement  of  the  Commission's  I,  Investigations;  II,  Findings  and 
Conclusions;  III,  Plans  for  the  Main  Drainage  and  Disposal  Works,  and  IV,  Scheme  of  Administration 
proposed. 


40 
CONDENSED  STATEMENT  OF  THE  WORK  OF  THE  METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 

/.     Investigations. 

1.  A  thorough  study  of  the  chemical  and  bacteriological  condition  of  the  harbor  waters  and  deposits 
beneath  the  waters,  including  about  6000  analyses  covering  all  seasons  of  year  and  all  sections  of  the  harbor. 

2.  Tidal  studies  to  determine  the  volumes  of  M'ater  flowing  at  different  stages  of  tide  in  all  the  im- 
portant sections  of  the  harbor. 

3.  An  investigation  of  the  present  conditions  of  sewerage  and  sewage  disposal  in  New  York  City  and 
the  other  cities  and  towns  within  twenty  miles  of  the  Mew  York  City  Hall. 

4.  The  relation  of  the  polluted  water  to  health,  especially  through  the  medium  of  shellfish,  bathing  and 
the  collection  of  driftwood. 

5.  The  location  and  extent  of  nuisances  to  sight  and  smell,  especially  in  large  parts  of  the  harbor, 
such  as  the  Harlem  and  Lower  East  rivers  and  among  the  docks  and  piers  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn. 

6.  The  present  and  probable  future  population  and  density  of  population  in  all  parts  of  New  York 
City. 

7.  Estimates  of  quantities  of  sewage  with  the  weights  of  the  various  ingredients  now  discharged  and 
likely  in  future  to  be  produced  throughout  the  city  and  neighboring  territory  in  New  Jersey. 

8.  Condition  of  the  sewers  of  Manhattan  as  shown  by  inspections. 

9.  Experiments  to  determine  the  circumstances  under  which  sewage  may  be  discharged  into  the  harbor 
without  danger  of  producing  nuisance  or  injury  to  the  public  health. 

10.  Studies  of  the  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works  of  other  large  cities  comparable  with  New 
York  in  respect  to  their  topography,  population  and  facilities  for  constructing  sanitary  disposal  plants. 

II.    Findings  and  Conclusions. 

1.  The  excrement  of  over  6,000,000  people,  discharged  into  the  harbor  through  several  hundred  out- 
lets, flows  backward  and  forward  in  plain  sight  from  the  shores,  docks  and  shipping. 

2.  Deposits  occur  which  putrefy  and  give  off  offensive  odors. 

3.  Contact  with  the  water  through  bathing,  the  collection  of  driftwood  and  otherwise  is  no  longer  safe 
anywhere  north  of  the  Narrows. 

4.  The  oxygen  natural  to  the  waters  is  already  half  gone  and  has  been  rapidly  diminishing  in  the  last 
few  years. 

5.  By  1940  the  population  and  the  sewage  produced  will  be  more  than  twice  the  figures  for  to-day. 

6.  The  processes  of  sewage  treatment  which  can  be  employed  in  New  York  are  restricted  by  the  con- 
gested population  and  high  cost  of  land  to  screening  and  sedimentation  in  deep  settling  tanks  and,  of  these, 
only  screening  is  suitable  for  the  built-up  sections  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn. 

7.  Several  hundred  million  gallons  of  sewage  naturally  tributary  to  the  inner  harbor  will  eventually 
have  to  be  taken  to  the  open  ocean  for  disposal  and  all  works  built  to  effect  the  relief  now  imperatively  re- 
quired should  be  so  designed  as  to  be  made  part  of  an  ocean  outlet  project. 

8.  Preparation  of  a  final  report  answering  all  the  queries  which  the  Commission  was  created  to  study 
and  proposing  definite  plans  for  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  to  serve  The  City  of  New  York  for  the 
next  thirty  or  forty  years. 

9.  Formulation  of  a  standard  of  cleanness  for  the  harbor  water  to  serve  as  a  guide  in  the  construction 
and  operation  of  main  drainage  and  disposal  works. 

10.  The  subject  of  protecting  the  harbor  against  excessive  pollution  by  sewage  has  now  passed  suffi- 
ciently through  the  period  of  investigation  and  general  planning  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  works  required 
by  New  York. 

11.  A  central  commission  should  at  once  be  created  to  take  over  the  records  and  general  plans  of  the 
Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission  and  proceed  with  the  necessary  detailed  planning  and  construction  and 
operation  of  such  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works  as  are  needed. 


41 

HI.   Plans. 

1.  In  general,  intercepting  sewers  to  connect  with  the  local  sewerage  systems  which  now  exist,  or  will 
in  future  be  constructed,  and  carry  the  sewage  to  suitably  located  points  for  treatment  and  discharge. 

2.  The  works  to  be  built  gradually,  definite  steps  being  taken  as  time  proceeds  and  the  necessity  for 
further  protection  is  recognized.    Every  step  to  form  an  indispensible  part  of  the  ultimate  system. 

3.  Specifically,  so  far  as  can  be  stated  here: 

a.  Plant  at  the  northeast  corner  of  Wards  Island.     To  this  point  would  be  brought  dry-weather  sew- 
age, eventually  amounting  to  about  400  million  gallons  per   day,  from  northern   Manhattan  and  south- 
western Bronx.    The  first  installation  would  be  for  about  170  million  gallons  which  may  be  expected  by 
1920.    The  treatment  would  be  sedimentation.    The  first  cost  would  be  about  $5,000,000  and  the  annual 
operating  charges  at  that  date  about  $175,000. 

b.  Plant  at  Tallmans  Island.     Here  a  large  part  of  the  sewage  of  northern  Queens  would  be  brought 
for  treatment  by  sedimentation.     The  capacity  by  the  year  1920  should  be  approximately  10  million  gallons 
per  day.    The  first  installation  would  be  about  $1,285,000  and  the  operating  charges  in  1920  $30,000. 

c.  Plants  at  Corlears  Hook  and  various  points  on  the  Lower  East  river  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn 
and  on  the  Hudson  shore  of  Manhattan.    At  first  all  the  works  would  include  screens  and  submerged  out- 
lets extending  sufficiently  far  from  shore  to  insure  a  prompt  and  thorough  diffusion  of  the  sewage.    Later, 
as  the  quantity  of  sewage  increased  and  a  more  complete  protection  of  the  water  was  needed,  a  substantial 
part  of  the  sewage  tributary  to  the  Lower  East  river  would  be  collected  to  a  central  pumping  station  near  the 
Brooklyn  Navy  Yard  and  discharged  through  a  tunnel  to  the  sea.     This  ocean  island  project,  when  com- 
plete, would  cost  about  $17,000,000  with  maintenance  charges  of  about  $408,000.    The  first  stage,  which  is 
all  that  may  be   necessary   for   some  years,  would  cost   about   $3,000,000   and   for   maintenance   about 
$125,000. 

d.  For  Jamaica  bay  a  plant  at  Jos  Cos  Marsh  for  the  sewage  of  southeastern  Queens  and  either  a  plant 
at  Barren  Island  or  a  sea  outlet  for  the  sewage  from  the  rest  of  southern  Queens  and  southeastern  Brooklyn. 
The  quantity  of  sewage  first  to  be  provided  for  at  Jo  Cos  Marsh  would  be  about  10  million  gallons  per  day 
and  the  first  installation,  with  its  interceptors,  etc.,  would  cost  about  $1,100,000  with  an  operating  cost  of 
about  $46,000. 

For  the  portion  carried  to  Barren  Island,  the  first  installation  would  treat  83  million  gallons  per  day 
and  would  cost  about  $6,000,000.  The  operating  charges  in  1920  would  be  about  $145,000.  If  the  ocean 
island  project  (see  c  above)  was  carried  out,  the  sewage  which  would  otherwise  go  to  Barren  Island  could 
be  taken  to  the  ocean  island  by  works  whose  final  cost  would  be  about  $4,000,000  with  operating  charges  of 
less  than  $60,000  in  1920. 

e.  For  Richmond,  five  points  where  grit  chambers  and  screening  plants  would  be  located.     The  first 
investment  would  be  less  than  $1,000,000. 

IV.    Scheme  of  Administration. 

1.  It  is  recommended  that  a  new  commission  be  created  or  an  existing  commission  be  designated  to 
perform  the  following  duties: 

a.  Take  over,  continue  and  extend  the  work  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission. 

b.  Make  such  detailed  investigations,  including  surveys  and  borings,  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  con- 
tract plans  and  estimates  for  the  construction  of  a  system  of  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  for  New 
York  City. 

c.  Prepare  these  necessary  plans  and  estimates. 

d.  Construct  the  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  works  required  after  they  have  been  duly  ap- 
proved by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment. 

e.  Operate  the  works  after  construction,  or,  where  parts  are  situated  wholly  within  a  borough,  perhaps 
turn  those  parts  over  to  the  borough  to  operate  under  the  regulation  and  control  of  the  central  commission. 

2.  The  foregoing  scheme  of  administration  has  been  recommended  after  full  consideration  and  consulta- 
tion with  various  persons  familiar  with  the  machinery  of  the  city  government,  including  ex-Mayors  Low 
and  McClellan. 


42 

3.    Among  the  reasons  why  it  is  considered  better  to  place  the  constructive  work  in  the  hands  of  a 
commission  than  in  the  hands  of  the  boroughs  are  the  following: 

a.  The  sewage  problem  is  essentially  one  problem  and  not  an  aggregation  of  more  or  less  loosely  re- 
lated parts.     The  pollution  is  not  only  local,  hut  general,  and  the  system  which  is  to  correct  the  conditions 
should  be  general  also.    Such  divisions  of  the  work  as  are  necessary  should  depend  upon  the  opportunities 
and  necessities  which  the  various  parts  of  the  city  present  and  not  upon  political  boundaries. 

b.  The  construction  of  a  main  drainage  and  sewage  disposal  system  requires  a  high  degree  of  scientific 
and  technical  skill  and  may  well  receive  the  concentrated  attention  of  a  special  board  or  commission  for 
construction.     The  experience  gained  in  constructing  and  operating  the  works  in  one  locality  should  be 
completely  available  for  all.    This  would  be  automatically  provided  for  in  a  central  constructing  commis- 
sion, but  could  never  be  perfectly  realized  if  the  works  were  built  by  the  boroughs. 

c.  For  the  gradual  construction  of  the  works  there  would  be  need  of  continuity  and  consistency  of  pur- 
pose and  this  could  more  certainly  be  insured  through  a  commission  than  through  the  five  separate  boroughs. 

d.  Borough  construction,  however  appropriate  for  local  sewerage,  the  object  of  which  is  to  protect  the 
land  against  pollution,  is  not  so  suitable  for  main  drainage  and  disposal  works  whose  purpose  it  is  to  im- 
prove and  protect  the  general  waterways  of  the  city.     Harbor  work  should  be,  and  generally  is,  strongly 
centralized,  as,  for  example,  dredging  and  dock  building. 


New  York 

Lletrophli' 

commissioi 


City; 

on  sewerage 


Supple™  mtary  report 


1914 
sup. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


:•'•--';'''     W    .••/•        "':'''    -  -• 
•'•  if"-'".''  ..'      .•••-   ,-" .'  '••  .',     5?  ' 


i:m;;:;a"iv'--- 


